View Full Version : 5.56 vs. .223 chamber image source
Does anyone know the original source for this image?
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/chart%20article/556vs223Chamber.jpg
I've seen it in so many places and for so long on the web that I am not sure where it first appeared. I believe it came from http://www.saami.org/unsafe3.htm but that link is no longer active. IIRC that page had a detailed description of pressures etc. to outline the differences.
I'd like to find the actual, original, source for the above image, or an alternate source that has the same specs for chamber dimensions such that I could make my own version of the above and give proper credit.
Robb Jensen
06-26-08, 06:21
I don't know the source you have but Randall of www.ar15barrels.com has some good chamber .223/5.56mm NATO info on his site:
http://www.ar15barrels.com/data/223vs556.pdf
http://www.ar15barrels.com/data/223-556.pdf
Thanks Robb.
BTW, sent you an email earlier this morning on a somewhat related matter.
ammo-oracle.com
Yeah, but they got it from somewhere else first. They didn't make that image.
Ned Christiansen
06-26-08, 08:17
The September issue of SWAT Magazine will have an article by me on this subject. There should be a pretty good picture of two pieces of barrel, sectioned, one chambered in .223 and one in 5.56 NATO.
In the article I also do a little accuracy testing-- in a Sabre heavy target/varmint barrel with a .223 chamber. I do some grouping before and after reaming to 5.56.
my understanding is that a 5.56 chambering is generally less accurate than a 223 chambering when shooting 223 ammo
thoughts?
my understanding is that a 5.56 chambering is generally less accurate than a 223 chambering when shooting 223 ammo
thoughts?
That's the prevailing consensus, yes.
Wayne Dobbs
07-14-08, 08:51
And when the day arrives that I can outshoot my carbine from real world working positions and conditions, I shall commence to worrying about that horrible loss of accuracy from shooting a 5.56 NATO chamber!
I ask because I use mine for more than just tactical stuff and wanting tight groups on paper and for varmint hunting...
Heavy Metal
07-14-08, 15:35
Ned,
Whats your take on the Wylde chamber?
my understanding is that a 5.56 chambering is generally less accurate than a 223 chambering when shooting 223 ammo
thoughts?
Correct. On a fighting weapon, reliability is more important than accuracy.
Ned,
Whats your take on the Wylde chamber?
Not Ned, but my .02 is that they are a bad idea. Reason being is that they can be overly tight and you can get into feeding issues with NATO ammo (especially MK262 and Hornady T2).
C4
Correct. On a fighting weapon, reliability is more important than accuracy.
I would agree..
I second that...............
And when the day arrives that I can outshoot my carbine from real world working positions and conditions, I shall commence to worrying about that horrible loss of accuracy from shooting a 5.56 NATO chamber!
Well said Grasshopper!
Not Ned, but my .02 is that they are a bad idea. Reason being is that they [Wylde chambers] can be overly tight and you can get into feeding issues with NATO ammo (especially MK262 and Hornady T2).
C4
Resurrecting this thread, from Ned's latest in SWAT, a Wylde, a true Wylde, is as generous dimensionally as a NATO chamber in all of the body dimensions.
The throat diameter is the only dimension where it's tighter than a NATO chamber. The neck is more generous, the throat is longer, and the leade angle is the same.
Is there some dimension you're aware of that makes the Wylde less reliable? Is it the throat dimension that you believe detracts from it's relaibility? Have you seen Randall's posted reamer dimensions? Have you seen the data Ned posted in the SWAT article?
Grant,
I totally agree. When I was on the Battalion Rifle Team we were shooting at pop-ups with the M16A2 at 500M and with good consistency. Were they effective? Who knows. Having said that I believe that most engagements in theater and elsewhere are happening at 300M or less. The M16/ M4 is more than capable of making hits at those distances. What I want it a weapon that goes bang every time I pull the trigger and not "click".
Correct. On a fighting weapon, reliability is more important than accuracy.
.
The throat diameter is the only dimension where it's tighter than a NATO chamber. The neck is more generous, the throat is longer, and the leade angle is the same.
Is there some dimension you're aware of that makes the Wylde less reliable? Is it the throat dimension that you believe detracts from it's relaibility? Have you seen Randall's posted reamer dimensions? Have you seen the data Ned posted in the SWAT article?[/QUOTE]
I have to be honest, I haven't done much in the way of researching the actual differences in the Wylde and Nato 5.56 chambers. I can tell you that in my experience I have had trouble with the Wylde chambered barrels, they have been very picky as to the ammo they would digest, if the chamber dimensions are the same on paper then most of the manufactures have not stuck by it and are putting out some tight chambers. In today's times with ammo at the price it is, most of the shooting public need barrels that will work with the lower priced and lower quality ammo. Just my 2$ worth...................AD
.
The throat diameter is the only dimension where it's tighter than a NATO chamber. The neck is more generous, the throat is longer, and the leade angle is the same.
Is there some dimension you're aware of that makes the Wylde less reliable? Is it the throat dimension that you believe detracts from it's relaibility? Have you seen Randall's posted reamer dimensions? Have you seen the data Ned posted in the SWAT article?
I have to be honest, I haven't done much in the way of researching the actual differences in the Wylde and Nato 5.56 chambers. I can tell you that in my experience I have had trouble with the Wylde chambered barrels, they have been very picky as to the ammo they would digest, if the chamber dimensions are the same on paper then most of the manufactures have not stuck by it and are putting out some tight chambers. In today's times with ammo at the price it is, most of the shooting public need barrels that will work with the lower priced and lower quality ammo. Just my 2$ worth...................AD
A couple of questions, and I don't mean for the first to be insulting:
(1) Are you sure these are Wylde-chambered weapons? RRA's or some other? Or might they be some other match-style chamber, and you're just assuming they are Wylde's?
(2) Do you know the cleaning patterns of the operators? Are these guys who never clean their barrels and just occasionally lube the BCG with some CLP or lube? Any idea if the unreliability is evident with a recently cleaned weapon or only after many hundred rounds? I'm wondering if the .224-throated Wylde throat can't tolerate as many rounds between cleanings as a more generous .2265-.2270-throated NATO chamber? But run brush through the throat every so often, and the problem disappears? Just a theory......
A couple of questions, and I don't mean for the first to be insulting:
(1) Are you sure these are Wylde-chambered weapons? RRA's or some other? Or might they be some other match-style chamber, and you're just assuming they are Wylde's?
(2) Do you know the cleaning patterns of the operators? Are these guys who never clean their barrels and just occasionally lube the BCG with some CLP or lube? Any idea if the unreliability is evident with a recently cleaned weapon or only after many hundred rounds? I'm wondering if the .224-throated Wylde throat can't tolerate as many rounds between cleanings as a more generous .2265-.2270-throated NATO chamber? But run brush through the throat every so often, and the problem disappears? Just a theory......
No worries, I know you don't mean it that way.
(1) I am not sure they were true Wylde chambers, that is what the supplier had told me, I think there may be several different knock offs of the Wylde chamber different manufactures are using.
(2) I was the one using the barrels ( I had several different barrels from different manufactures) , they were all new, I cleaned them very well before using them. They all had problems with tight chambers, more so with the cheep wolf ammo than the higher priced ammo, but did have some problems with even true mil.spec. ammo. I can't say if they were true Wylde chambered barrels or not, but I came to the conclusion that a rifle needs to work before you worry about it being accurate.
I have laid to rest my curiosity about the Wylde and other non Nato chambers and have stuck to true Nato 5.56 barrels. I know we should clean our barrels, I have been putting allot of rounds through a couple of my gas piston TE uppers ( 5.56 Nato chambers ) and even after 7000-8000 rounds with out cleaning they are still working. So I would say yes the Nato chamber is the way to go in a combat rifle........................AD
No worries, I know you don't mean it that way.
(1) I am not sure they were true Wylde chambers, that is what the supplier had told me, I think there may be several different knock offs of the Wylde chamber different manufactures are using.
(2) I was the one using the barrels ( I had several different barrels from different manufacturers) , they were all new, I cleaned them very well before using them. They all had problems with tight chambers, more so with the cheep wolf ammo than the higher priced ammo, but did have some problems with even true mil.spec. ammo. I can't say if they were true Wylde chambered barrels or not, but I came to the conclusion that a rifle needs to work before you worry about it being accurate.
I have laid to rest my curiosity about the Wylde and other non Nato chambers and have stuck to true Nato 5.56 barrels. I know we should clean our barrels, I have been putting allot of rounds through a couple of my gas piston TE uppers ( 5.56 Nato chambers ) and even after 7000-8000 rounds with out cleaning they are still working. So I would say yes the Nato chamber is the way to go in a combat rifle........................AD
Thanx.
Besides Rock River, who else chambers barrels using a Wylde chamber? Any large mfg's, or are you talking smaller, boutique shops (e.g., Noveske, White Oak, Compass Lake, etc.)?
Thanx.
Besides Rock River, who else chambers barrels using a Wylde chamber? Any large mfg's, or are you talking smaller, boutique shops (e.g., Noveske, White Oak, Compass Lake, etc.)?
As I recall one of them was a RR barrel, the other I am not sure who actually machined it as I got it from one of my buddies who sells AR parts, but I was told it was a Wylde chamber.
The barrel was given to me, so I used it on my first attempt at building my piston upper idea, figured if my attempt didn't work I wouldn't be out of any $$........
I dont think any of the major companys use anything other than Nato, unless its a dedicated target barrel.
I checked Rock River's website, and according to it, all current-production carbine barrels are 5.56 NATO, and Wylde's are chambered only in 20" or 24" varmint barrels.
All I can say is that the Wylde chamber doesn't work with hot Hirtenberger surplus ammo.
Resurrecting this thread, from Ned's latest in SWAT, a Wylde, a true Wylde, is as generous dimensionally as a NATO chamber in all of the body dimensions.
The throat diameter is the only dimension where it's tighter than a NATO chamber. The neck is more generous, the throat is longer, and the leade angle is the same.
Is there some dimension you're aware of that makes the Wylde less reliable? Is it the throat dimension that you believe detracts from it's relaibility? Have you seen Randall's posted reamer dimensions? Have you seen the data Ned posted in the SWAT article?
Yes, a TRUE wylde chamber SHOULD be ok, but to my knowledge we have never actually seen ANY manufacturer make one. They generally make them much closer to a .223 chamber.
I have read Ned's article (very good). I also own one of Ned's 556 reamers and it does not lie. The majority of companies (like RRA) stamp 556 NATO on their barrels, but they are not. They tend to use a "version" of the 223 wylde chamber and is the reason why I get back so much material when doing reaming.
C4
Pic of 556 NATO reamer after it has passed thru a Colt 6920
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Colt/6920%20Reamed.jpg
Pic of 556 NATO reamer after it has passed thru a tier 3 manufacturer
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/SW/15A%20reamed.jpg
Thanx.
Besides Rock River, who else chambers barrels using a Wylde chamber? Any large mfg's, or are you talking smaller, boutique shops (e.g., Noveske, White Oak, Compass Lake, etc.)?
I do not know of anyone using a true Wylde chambers. They tend to use something much closer to a 223 chamber.
C4
Are reamers produced to the true dimensions?
Are reamers produced to the true dimensions?
Yes (if you order them that way).
C4
Yes, a TRUE wylde chamber SHOULD be ok, but to my knowledge we have never actually seen ANY manufacturer make one. They generally make them much closer to a .223 chamber.
I have read Ned's article (very good). I also own one of Ned's 556 reamers and it does not lie. The majority of companies (like RRA) stamp 556 NATO on their barrels, but they are not. They tend to use a "version" of the 223 wylde chamber and is the reason why I get back so much material when doing reaming.
C4
OK, in the above context, who are "they"? There have been many references throughout this thread that many manufacturers produce Wylde chambered weapons, yet the only one I'm aware of is Rock River, and that's for their 20" and 24" barrels. Whether true versions, or tighter variants, who else besides RRA claims to produce Wylde-chambered weapons?
OK, in the above context, who are "they"? There have been many references throughout this thread that many manufacturers produce Wylde chambered weapons, yet the only one I'm aware of is Rock River, and that's for their 20" and 24" barrels. Whether true versions, or tighter variants, who else besides RRA claims to produce Wylde-chambered weapons?
"They" is every tier 3 AR manufacturers.
Long before all the tier 3 AR manufacturers labeled their barrels "556 NATO" they actually labeled them either .223 wylde or didn't label them at all and just told people that they were chambered in that size. In actuality, they weren't even using a true "wylde" chamber.
I am willing to bet that if I put a .223 Wylde reamer in those RRA varmint AR's, I would get material back. ;)
C4
"They" is every tier 3 AR manufacturers.
Long before all the tier 3 AR manufacturers labeled their barrels "556 NATO" they actually labeled them either .223 wylde or didn't label them at all and just told people that they were chambered in that size. In actuality, they weren't even using a true "wylde" chamber.
I am willing to bet that if I put a .223 Wylde reamer in those RRA varmint AR's, I would get material back. ;)
C4
I guess I assumed everyone either chambered in 5.56 NATO or .223 SAAMI, and only a very few used a Wylde reamer.
So if I understand you correctly, Tier 3 mfg's label them NATO, but they really aren't.
In effect they are Wylde's, but even then, they aren't true Wylde's, there a "tight" Wylde.
But this "tight" Wylde is still a bit more generous than a .223 SAAMI, correct?
I guess I assumed everyone either chambered in 5.56 NATO or .223 SAAMI, and only a very few used a Wylde reamer.
So if I understand you correctly, Tier 3 mfg's label them NATO, but they really aren't.
In effect they are Wylde's, but even then, they aren't true Wylde's, there a "tight" Wylde.
But this "tight" Wylde is still a bit more generous than a .223 SAAMI, correct?
Never believe what is written on a barrel until you have verified it. Think of barrel manufacturers (or tier 3 AR makers) as used car salesman.
I do not even think a lot of these companies even know what what kind of chamber they have in their own barrels! Here is a recent conversation I had with a company about their barrels:
Me: Are your barrels 556 NATO?
Them: Yes they are.
Me: How do you know?
Them: Because it says it on the barrel.
:rolleyes:
C4
Is the reamer based on loose side of 5.56 chamber? I'm curious as to how come reamer removed material from Colt 6920 barrel?
Is the reamer based on loose side of 5.56 chamber? I'm curious as to how come reamer removed material from Colt 6920 barrel?
The reamer really didn't remove anything the 6920. If you looked at the reamer with your naked eye, you wouldn't see anything on it.
C4
Here's an interesting graphic off of Ned's site, a chamber comparison of SAAMI, NATO and one after running his Neck/Throat Reamer through it. As you can see, his reamer cuts them a tad more generously than even the NATO.
http://www.m-guns.com/galimg/aeq.sized.jpg
Here's an interesting graphic off of Ned's site, a chamber comparison of SAAMI, NATO and one after running his Neck/Throat Reamer through it. As you can see, his reamer cuts them a tad more generously than even the NATO.
http://www.m-guns.com/galimg/aeq.sized.jpg
Yes, I know it is SLIGHTLY bigger and is why I get a some specs of chrome when reaming a 6920 barrel.
C4
I'm a little skeptical about the above statements about wylde chambers. My experiences with them (5 guns, 7 barrels (4 of which are for games)) have been nothing but positive.
However, I am mildly concerned that so many mfgs intentionally misrepresent their chambers. I appreciate folks like Noveske calling their chamber a "Match Mod0" or something.
This spring I called a mfg that is well respected around here, and asked if I could supply the barrel for them to build their upper around because I wanted a non-standard chamber. I was told that wasn't necessary because their "5.56 NATO" already had the mods I wanted to it.
It really doesn't take a lot of effort to put more info on the barrel that indicates a base chamber with some specific mods to it. e.g. "Ackley Improved" or "Dasher" or "Wylde"
it would even become a selling point... a desirable feature.
sounds like rob_s is working on a new chart :)
I'm a little skeptical about the above statements about wylde chambers. My experiences with them (5 guns, 7 barrels (4 of which are for games)) have been nothing but positive.
However, I am mildly concerned that so many mfgs intentionally misrepresent their chambers. I appreciate folks like Noveske calling their chamber a "Match Mod0" or something.
This spring I called a mfg that is well respected around here, and asked if I could supply the barrel for them to build their upper around because I wanted a non-standard chamber. I was told that wasn't necessary because their "5.56 NATO" already had the mods I wanted to it.
It really doesn't take a lot of effort to put more info on the barrel that indicates a base chamber with some specific mods to it. e.g. "Ackley Improved" or "Dasher" or "Wylde"
it would even become a selling point... a desirable feature.
sounds like rob_s is working on a new chart :)
If the chambers were ACTUALLY wylde then I wouldn't have any issues/concerns. The problem as I see it is that they are not.
C4
Never believe what is written on a barrel until you have verified it.
C4
How do you go about verifying it?
Would anyone here know if my 16 inch stainless steel White Oak Armament medium contour barrel is in fact a true Wylde chambered barrel? I have shot nearly every brand of commercially loaded 223 and 5.56 as well as my own hand loads and have yet to have a ftf or fte.
If you have doubts, call them up, ask to speak to John, and refer them to this thread. Just ask him straight up if he uses a Wylde or a variant, and if so, what's the variance?
How do you go about verifying it?
Chamber casting or a reamer in that spec.
C4
Just for curiosity I may do a casting of my BM barrel and Operator barrel just to see how they measure up. Years ago I did a casting of a surplus 6.5 Swede, and I still have that on my bench. Talk about freebore.
ok i dont like smoke and mirrors of eastovershoe gun butchers who sell crap with a paint job as sniper/match etc ,with the chamber specs goes same way its design is 556 nato not 223 get the FN spec reamer and headspace gauges ,save your face and live longer!its the bad bottem line crap again!!!
Ok this is my first post on this forum, I called Colt yesterday about my HBAR 223 and the 5.56 Question, My lower reciever is stamped 223,and i have fired a ship load of 556 throught it, Customer Service at colt told me all Colts were reamed to fire 5.56 and tested for the pressures,I then ask to speak to someone in the Q.C. Department and Shawn got on the phone,I told him the 223 and 5.56 were throated diffferent,He said that was right but all Colt AR15 type were milled for the 5.56 even when the reciever is marked 223.
I requested something in writing and Colt said they would send it,Hope to post it when it arrives
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.