|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The major difference is that Ned Christiansens 5.56mm NATO neck and throat reamer cuts ONLY the neck and throat of the chamber. When using it with the supplied handle from Ned the barrel doesn't need to be disassembled from the upper receiver. You can't over cut this area with Neds reamer.
The Brownells reamers are complete chamber reamers. If you don't know what you're doing with this you can really FUBAR a barrel. You'll also need a lathe with the Brownells reamers.
Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)
As posted by Bill Wylde on THR:
Posted By: Bill Wylde
Date: Thursday, 13 November 2003, at 8:46 a.m.
In Response To: Re: .223 Wylde
The case dimensions of the Wylde reamer are that of one of the NATO prints. Not a thing tight about it. As I recall, there were two NATO prints in use. I don't recall the print number used, but do have it in old records somewhere.
Throating was about the only change. The decision was made to make the freebore diameter .2240" as a good bullet seal. That done, excess freebore made little difference to accuracy. One of the reasons the magazine length 69's shot so well in the chamber. It so happened that the 80 grain Sierra seated to the lands was about ideal at .2470" OAL. Simple luck.....All of it.
The initial reamer(designed in 1984)was mainly geared toward Canadian 5.56 ball, as I was experimenting with their issue ball for competitive purposes. This operation was slow in getting off the ground, and really didn't start happening until about 1990. The use of 5.56 NATO ball in Canada was a short lived affair. Handloads were allowed in about 1994.
Just prior to this time the AR's were gaining great strength in the U.S. The military finally got involved. The rest is history.
You might ask how the the 62 grain 5.56 ball worked for Canadian LR prone shooting to 1,000 yds? It was supersonic in barrels of 28", and longer. It also was very competitive with the 147 grain 7.62 ball in use there at the time. The wind drift differential at long range (7.62/5.56) was about 15% in favor of the 7.62.
Those days were very interesting.
Bookmarks