Talk:.223 Remington

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: * Should be merged.  They aren't two different cartridges, they are two different sets of specs for the same cartridge.  They are equivalant, and completely interchangeable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.229.244.30 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue. If you cannot read the warning in the photo it says: "Warning: PMC 5.56mm NATO ammunition is to be used in rifles labeled as 5.56mm and must NOT be used in those rifles labled .223."  NOT is both upper case and underlined. The US and NATO military forces use SS109, SS110, and SS111 cartridges (M855, M856, M857 Us nomenclature).  Recently the M855 had it's lead removed and is now M855A1.  Although the 5.56mm NATO chambered rifles can use .223 Rem, I don't believe any do so as regular policy due to the shorter range, reduced armor penetration, and logistics problems that would cause. Digitallymade (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  No. 5.56mm 62gr is NOW M855A1 (the 55gr .223 Rem was M193).
* 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)

text: The Cartridge cases are IDENTICAL.  The rifle chambers (all three) are not.  The main difference between .223 Rem chambers and 5.56mm Nato chambers has to do with what the USA calls Throating and the UK calls Leade. The .223 chamber is shorter, and will cause a higher pressure, even than the rated 62,000 psi if a 5.56 NATO round is fired.  This would be approaching proof pressure levels.  Sustain use can cause a rifle to explode.  I oppose merging for another reason as well.  .223 Rem is a civilian cartridge, and is the most popular rifle cartridge in the world today in civilian use.  5.56mm NATO is a military cartridge.  These are two entirely different uses.Digitallymade (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with 5.56 NATO 

message: 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)
replies: text: The VAST majority of AR type rifles use US style steel magazines because they are CHEAP.  As long as it works, it doesn't matter what magazine is depicted.  Some SIG (NOT Sig Sauer) assault rifles (the real thing, military full auto) do not use the standard magazine having been modified to use a clear see through plastic magazine. I use several types of magazines including some that are transparent.Digitallymade (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.cip-bp.org/index.php?id=tdcc-telechargement
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 10mm Auto on 2011-05-23 02:08:47, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.accuratepowder.com/data/PerCaliber2Guide/Rifle/Standarddata(Rifle)/22Cal(5.56mm)/223%20Remington%20pages%20185%20to%20187.pdf
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:36, 404 Not Found
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:44:28, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.rockriverarms.com/images/wylde.jpg
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:39, 404 Not Found
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:45:16, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/news/newsview.aspx?storyid=11
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:36, 404 Not Found
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:45:17, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.saami.org/Unsafe_Combinations.cfm
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-20 21:28:39, 404 Not Found
** In .223 Remington on 2011-05-31 04:45:39, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: What is the relevance of the image in the table? It's a 5.56, 30-30, and 7.62; The .223 is a very diffrent caliber, and is not interchangable (you can't put a 5.56 into a .223). Please exchange wwith an appropriate image.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.31.186 (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Revlevance

message: SAAMI cartridge names never begin with "." So this cartridge is called 223 Remington, not .223 Remington.  Someone should correct this on all of Wikipedia's cartridge entries. I would do it myself but I am not sure how to keep from breaking Wikipedia's links. http://www.saami.org/pubresources/cc_drawings/Rifle/223%20Remington.pdf  71.184.91.47 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. SAAMI gives advice only and their sloppiness in this regard just confuses things. ALL US/English rifle cartridges use the decimal to indicate caliber except old rifles that used BORE.  SAAMI does not develop or trademark brands.  Sloppiness is creeping into a lot of areas, especially English language usage.  Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they are exactly the same case dimension. Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm sure you understand that the ratio would be 1:6.5  period.Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

text: That's true.  Many uppers have no markings at all.  Any upper can be put on any Mil-Spec receiver. However you statement about the construction of the lower being less important is NOT true. They are equal.  The slightest problem with the lower may mean that the gun will be unreliable, or the trigger may not fit, etc. etc.  Tolerances are very tight.  I have an out of spec lower and it caused me quite a bit of trouble.  Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

text: The diagram follows the current C.I.P. TDCC, see http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page86.pdf. The TDCC mentions no 40° angle.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: general comment

message: ... shouldn't the history page mention what year it was conceived or developed or when it became available? 
T85.166.160.236 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they are exactly the same case dimension. Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you understand that the ratio would be 1:6.5  period.Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

text: That's true.  Many uppers have no markings at all.  Any upper can be put on any Mil-Spec receiver. However you statement about the construction of the lower being less important is NOT true. They are equal.  The slightest problem with the lower may mean that the gun will be unreliable, or the trigger may not fit, etc. etc.  Tolerances are very tight.  I have an out of spec lower and it caused me quite a bit of trouble.  Digitallymade (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly question, maybe, but .... 

message: The diagram of the cartridge calls out a 25° angle at the base.  The diagram as drawn actually has a http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page86.pdf, which I believe is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.43.210 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The diagram follows the current C.I.P. TDCC, see http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page86.pdf. The TDCC mentions no 40° angle.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartridge Dimensions 

message: A few cartridge comparisons.  .223 Rem is the original AR-15/M16 cartridge.  All others resulted from NATO standardization.  NO PB means LEAD FREE. All the NATO calibers have penetrators.  The SS111 performance (as far as I know) has not be made public although some Bofors ammo showed high performance in armor penetrate decades ago.  This data came from the US Army Green Book and other sources many years ago.
The .223 Rem bullet is an analog to the .50 BMG bullet.  Those in the NATO rounds are ballistically superior.  NATO pressures are measured using the Piezo method.  Some suggest that the two pressures are the same.  I'll trust PMC in this.
Cartridge     	US Des	NATO Des	Bullet Wt   	Rifling	Throat   	Pressure
.223 Rem      	M193  	        	55 gr fmjbt 	1:10   	US tight 	55,000 (CUP)
5.56 x 45 NATO	M855  	SS109   	62g Pen     	1:7    	NATO Long	62,000(P)
5.56 x 45 NATO	M855A1	        	62 gr No PB 	1:7    	NATO Long	62,000 (P)
5.56 x 45 NATO	M856  	SS110   	77 gr Tracer	1:7    	NATO Long	62,000 (P)
5.56 x 45 NATO	M857  	SS111   	AP TC       	1:7    	NATO Long	62,000 (P)
I've repeated the warning photo from PMC M855 style:
Digitallymade (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comparisions 

message: == Errors in the first section: ==
Errors in the Introduction section.  Why is 5.56 x 45mm NATO being discussed under .223 Rem.  One is civilian and the other is military.  The Military does not use .223 Rem.  Actual military specifications are NOT necessarily revealed to the public, ex. SS111 specs
* .223 Remington (M193) and 5.56 x 45mm NATO (SS109) case dimensions are identical
* It is most commonly loaded with a 55 grain full metal jacket boat tail bullet similar to the bullet in M193 (US military)
* There is NO evidence that the 5.56mm NATO chamber changed
* NATO NEVER used the 55grain bullet.  The first was SS109 at 62 gr.
* The logic that 5.56mm chambering changed is incorrect.  .223 Rem chambering didn't change EITHER. What actually occurred (because of rifling) was the .223 Rem barrels were replaced with 5.56mm barrels with a 1:7 rifling.
*
Another Logical error... .223 Rem is a civilian round.  That means there is a HUGE number of makers (since it is also the world's most popular rifle caliber next to .22 LR) and a huge variety of velocities and loads.  This is NOT the case with military cartridges.
* The physics here on the energy don't work. If energy is m times 1/2 v squared, the only logical conclusion I can verify from Federal is a unit conversion issue. 73 grains divided by 100?, times velocity squared over 2 comes within range. The only problem is in pounds, 456 grams per pound is radically larger than what's cited. The math might be correct but the unit conversions from the ammunition manufacturer are wrong. Scroll down, how does an object of 55 grains have a total energy with significantly different velocities come within half a dozen joules? The energy as listed, or even pure instantaneous momentum is fantasy.
*  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.113.253 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The link may be archived in the Internet Archive. Felsic2 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Regarding this and the other "error" sections - Please offer some published sources that provide the correct information. No matter how expert you or I may be, we need to base our editing on verifiable sources, not personal knowledge. Felsic2 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have them.  I just don't always put them in the talk section.  Sometimes the references, although true, are not considered reliable, such as from some blogs and especially from forums.  In which case I'll leave them out of the main page until, or if, good references appear.  Sadly, a great deal of the older information is fading away.  There are few libraries with many books of authority and much of the older internet is being allowed to die out. Digitallymade (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Forums and blogs may only be used if the writers are recognized experts who have b=previously been published in reliable sources. See WP:SPS and WP:RS/SPS.  Felsic2 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll use them if I think they are worthwhile. Some of the true information on websites is accompanied by untrue information, which makes using the good information hazardous.  There are instances where blogs are commercially written, which may have good information, but because of what they are I won't use them.  There is a reference used on M14EBR that is a mass of advertisements for parts.  I let that ref stay there, but I don't trust it. (I fixed a large number of broken links on that article) By the way, the main problem with the barrel length section is that the source is amateurish.  The are actual barrel length analysis on the web with authority to them.  The failure to properly crown the muzzle after each cut destroys any validity as far as I am concerned.  Still even though it's not precise the point about short barrels losing velocity and effect is true. I learned about 40 YEARS AGO not to trust any article that was published by the people who publish MOST of the firearms information in magazines.  I distrust ANY source which lives through advertising.  But if it's the only source, what choice is there?  Digitallymade (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your concern about poor sources, including those that write about the same companies who support them through advertising. Even so, we all need to follow basic Wikipedia policies. If a good source doesn't exist for a certain fact, then the best solution is to leave out the supposed fact. We don't have to say anything, so we should stick with saying what appears in the most reliable sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure the purpose these diagrams of cartridges that appear in so many articles. I don't see how the information would be of much interest to anyone except cartridge designers and handloaders. Felsic2 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people that would benefit from that are cartridge collectors who are trying to identify a cartridge.  There are too many which share dimensions for this to be much help.  Cartridge collection guides are more useful.  In any case, I wonder if these are actually Public Domain, since everyone I have ever seen has been in a copyrighted book or from a copyrighted website. Digitallymade (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I hadn't even thought about that aspect. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: Errors in the Introduction section.  Why is 5.56 x 45mm NATO being discussed under .223 Rem.  One is civilian and the other is military.  The Military does not use .223 Rem.  Actual military specifications are NOT necessarily revealed to the public, ex. SS111 specs
* .223 Remington (M193) and 5.56 x 45mm NATO (SS109) case dimensions are identical
* It is most commonly loaded with a 55 grain full metal jacket boat tail bullet similar to the bullet in M193 (US military)
* There is NO evidence that the 5.56mm NATO chamber changed
* NATO NEVER used the 55grain bullet.  The first was SS109 at 62 gr.
* The logic that 5.56mm chambering changed is incorrect.  .223 Rem chambering didn't change EITHER. What actually occurred (because of rifling) was the .223 Rem barrels were replaced with 5.56mm barrels with a 1:7 rifling.
*
Another Logical error... .223 Rem is a civilian round.  That means there is a HUGE number of makers (since it is also the world's most popular rifle caliber next to .22 LR) and a huge variety of velocities and loads.  This is NOT the case with military cartridges.
* The physics here on the energy don't work. If energy is m times 1/2 v squared, the only logical conclusion I can verify from Federal is a unit conversion issue. 73 grains divided by 100?, times velocity squared over 2 comes within range. The only problem is in pounds, 456 grams per pound is radically larger than what's cited. The math might be correct but the unit conversions from the ammunition manufacturer are wrong. Scroll down, how does an object of 55 grains have a total energy with significantly different velocities come within half a dozen joules? The energy as listed, or even pure instantaneous momentum is fantasy.
*  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.113.253 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The link may be archived in the Internet Archive. Felsic2 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in the first section: 

message: This section describes some of the different .224 cartridges in development but fails to mention Winchester's.  It also fails to note that there are major differences in case design form .222 Rem Mag to .223 Rem.  It is a very incomplete history of the development.  A complete history can be found on the internet. 
The Daniel Watters reference is dead.
This statement is FALSE:
With the U.S. military adoption of the M16 assault rifle in 1963, the .223 Remington in a slightly derived form was standardized as the 5.56×45mm NATO.
With the introduction of the AR15 rifle the cartridge was standardized as the M193.
The .222 Rem is still being sold here, but it's appreciated by a small number of target shooters.  
Digitallymade (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in the History section 

message: False statement:
CIP lists .223 Rem pressures as 62,366 psi Piezo.  This is either misquoted or the wrong cartridge.  That is a pressure rating for 5.56 x 45mm NATO SS109, not .223 Rem.  I'll trust the US ratings in this.   CIP is clearly rating NATO and not REM.
rifling:
There is an implication that there are M16s around with 1:12 or 1:10 rifling.  When US went to NATO standard all of the M16s were rebarrelled to 1:7.  There might be a very few (probably illegal) M16s in the USA with 1:12 or 1:10 but the standard TODAY is 1:7.  The M16 is currently at the A4 development and is being completely phased out by the M4. 
The rifling section is confused and needs to be rewritten.Digitallymade (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Cartridge Dimensions and Rifling Sections 

message: The first line is wrong:
The .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm NATO cartridges and chamberings are similar but not identical.
The .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45mm NATO Cartridge cases are identical.  The rifle barrel chambers are different. (there is no purpose in using the word similar.  You CANNOT be both Similar and Different at the same time.
This statement:
While the cartridges are identical other than powder load, bullet weight, chamber pressure and the chamber leade (throating in the USA), i.e. distance from the projectile while seated in the case to the rifling is typically shorter in .223 Remington commercial chambers.
is nonsense.  It's contradictory in what it says. If a cartridge varies by any of it's element it cannot be identical. The ONLY element that is known to be similar is the cartridge case and that is identical.  The bullet are known to be dissimilar, powder charges are largely unknown.  Throating is definately different and may involve more differences than simply distance. (I suspect this is true but cannot confirm this positively)  The page actually suggests this is true which is a contradiction of an earlier statement on the same page. 
Pressure:
Removed copyrighted photo.
This image contradicts the statement about CIP pressures, which I do not feel are credible.  A 5.56 x 45 mm NATO round fired in a non-NATO chambered for .223 REM would, similar to bullet setback, cause a spike in pressure.  Setback alone can account for over 10,000 psi, which could be dangerous in a .223 Rem firearm.  However, this is just speculation.. the actual pressures generated may be much higher.  Sustained use of 5.56 Nato in a .223 Rem firearms is likely to cause damage.  It's similar to using proof ammunition.Digitallymade (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in .223 Rem vs 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, Brass Case, Pressure sections 

message: Logical problems:
*If the 62,000 psi 5.56mm Nato round is fired in the tighter .223 Rem type chamber it's 62,000 psi is likely to rise to over 72,000 psi, which I am sure is proof level pressure for the .223 Rem.  A 20% over pressure for .223 Rem would be 66,000psi.  5.56 Nato may well exceed even 72,000 psi. Note the warning on the PMC cartridge box for it's M855 type cartridge.
*If there had NOT been an accuracy problem with using .223 Rem in 5.56mm Nato chambers, no one would have altered chamber designs to correct this. Today, several rifle makers have changed to .223 Wylde chambers without specifically stating that they have (I've talked to some of them who told me this, one about a month ago).
Statement:-
It should also be noted that the upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached)
*Apart from the grammatical error there is an implication that the chamber is separate from the barrel as stated.   The Chamber is an integral part of the barrel.
*It's true that the stampings on a lower receiver do not necessarily reflect what barrel is used in the upper receiver.  It's also true that makers of upper receiver assemblies are switching to making a majority of them in 5.56mm Nato and .223 Wylde (even though this is not always stated).  And it's true there are still .223 Rem only barrels/uppers being sold.
This statement is untrue:On the other hand, the lower receiver is not subject to the majority of the stresses of firing, so the construction of it is significantly less important compared to the upper receiver.
*Anyone who has had an out of spec receiver knows this is untrue.  The importance of accurate manufacture of upper and lower is EQUAL. In general makers try to make their uppers and lowers comply with Mil-Spec.  They are NOT always successful.
Cartridge   	Chamber    	Pressure	Proof 20%
.223 Rem    	.223 Rem   	55,000  	66,000
5.56 mm NATO	5.56mm Nato	62,000  	74400
5.56mm NATO 	.223 Rem   	72,000+ 	66000
A firearm should NEVER be fired using a cartridge where pressures exceed proof levels.  It's clear from the chart that 5.56mm may be dangerous in a .223 Rem firearm.  Proof levels may in fact be higher than 20%.  There are enough firearms that have exploded which have been examined by the makers who have found, almost without variation, that high pressures were involved.  The implication is usually that a handload was too high pressure.  But it may also be due to repeated use of 5.56mm in a .223 Rem chambered firearm.
Digitallymade (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Chamber section 

message: Statement:  In the case of the 5.56 NATO, M193 ammunition
M193 is US spec for .223 Rem which is NOT used by US military. There is no such a thing as 5.56 NATO M193.  This error appears on a Midway advertisement (for one).
The USA is phasing out M855 in favor of M855A1.
This is a poor section.  Why mention the expected change in velocity due to barrel length without giving an example of barrel lengths used in various types of firearms.  Furthermore, it's illogical to talk about barrel length without also mentioning the stated muzzle velocity of common ammunition.
The stated reference makes a dubious claim that "5.56mm fired safely in a .223 Rem rifle.  They did not test pressure and don't know if it was safe, which is doubtful.  The temperature was lower than the test standard so results will be slightly off.
Since they were cutting barrels in a crude manner and not making any effort to give them a proper crown the velocity results may be slightly off also.  Cutting a barrel in that way may introduce stress etc.  In general the concept is OK.  The section has too little information to be useful.  Digitallymade (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this and the other "error" sections - Please offer some published sources that provide the correct information. No matter how expert you or I may be, we need to base our editing on verifiable sources, not personal knowledge. Felsic2 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have them.  I just don't always put them in the talk section.  Sometimes the references, although true, are not considered reliable, such as from some blogs and especially from forums.  In which case I'll leave them out of the main page until, or if, good references appear.  Sadly, a great deal of the older information is fading away.  There are few libraries with many books of authority and much of the older internet is being allowed to die out. Digitallymade (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Forums and blogs may only be used if the writers are recognized experts who have b=previously been published in reliable sources. See WP:SPS and WP:RS/SPS.  Felsic2 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll use them if I think they are worthwhile. Some of the true information on websites is accompanied by untrue information, which makes using the good information hazardous.  There are instances where blogs are commercially written, which may have good information, but because of what they are I won't use them.  There is a reference used on M14EBR that is a mass of advertisements for parts.  I let that ref stay there, but I don't trust it. (I fixed a large number of broken links on that article) By the way, the main problem with the barrel length section is that the source is amateurish.  The are actual barrel length analysis on the web with authority to them.  The failure to properly crown the muzzle after each cut destroys any validity as far as I am concerned.  Still even though it's not precise the point about short barrels losing velocity and effect is true. I learned about 40 YEARS AGO not to trust any article that was published by the people who publish MOST of the firearms information in magazines.  I distrust ANY source which lives through advertising.  But if it's the only source, what choice is there?  Digitallymade (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your concern about poor sources, including those that write about the same companies who support them through advertising. Even so, we all need to follow basic Wikipedia policies. If a good source doesn't exist for a certain fact, then the best solution is to leave out the supposed fact. We don't have to say anything, so we should stick with saying what appears in the most reliable sources. Felsic2 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in section Effects of barrel length on velocity 

message: Barnes currently loads an 85 gr in the .223 Rem.  The 90 grain Sierra is for single loading only (no semi-automatic) and is NOT commercially loaded.  
Digitallymade (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy bullets 

message: The diagram shown is for 5.56mm NATO from CIP.  CIP pressures shown are always for 5.56mm NATO even on their page claiming to be .223 Rem.  .223 Remington was submitted to SAAMI in 1964.
Here is a diagram of .223 Rem  .223 Remington Case Dimensions.
Here is another diagram of .223 Remington .223 Remington Diagram
I have several actual reloading manual diagrams but I cannot just photograph them and put them on commons because that would be a copyright violation.  NONE of the correct diagrams for .223 Rem that I have found are public domain.  Correct diagrams will always be labeled in inches which is how they are submitted to SAAMI.Digitallymade (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the purpose these diagrams of cartridges that appear in so many articles. I don't see how the information would be of much interest to anyone except cartridge designers and handloaders. Felsic2 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people that would benefit from that are cartridge collectors who are trying to identify a cartridge.  There are too many which share dimensions for this to be much help.  Cartridge collection guides are more useful.  In any case, I wonder if these are actually Public Domain, since everyone I have ever seen has been in a copyrighted book or from a copyrighted website. Digitallymade (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I hadn't even thought about that aspect. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimension and diagram 

message: The unit or designation of measure is Caliber.  Caliber is a unit "based" on inches and/or millimeter (mm).  When using the designation of caliber it is not represented directly as a measurement of inches.  Refer to the definition of caliber.  Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits.  When referring to cartridges, bullets or chambers the units or designation used is caliber.  This would be expressed without any leading decimal.  Example: 22 LR is the 22 caliber Long Rifle cartridge.  It may be approximately 0.22 inches in diameter; however, the Caliber is 22.  
Leaving the decimal out of imperial specifications is intentional.   It is not common language to say "Point 22 LR"  or "Dot 22 LR", the common phrase is "Twenty Two LR".   It is also easy to miss read or not see markings with a leading dot, thus another reason the unit of caliber is used. 
This page is for specifications in caliber, what is used in the industry.  Expressing it incorrectly as for example .45 caliber would translate a measurement in inches of .45/100 equaling 0.0045 inches.    Another example .223 Rem.  If this is a caliber unit it would translate to .223 thousandths (.223/1000), which would equate to 0.000223 inches. 
The title of these pages should be updated as well as the content to avoid confusion for people learning or understanding the correct terms. 
Further information on the correct way to specify values and units.  Values and the units used should be separated by a space.  Example 7 mm is correct,  7mm is not correct.  Correct case of letters (upper, lower)  is also important, mm = millimeters, MM who knows that that would be.  Another example (5.56 x 45 mm).  Both 5.46 and 45 are in mm (millimeters), note the spacing around the x and between the number (value) and the units (mm).
Scimernet (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caliber is the correct designation referenced  

message: That picture of a 222 compared to a 223 is a bad Photoshop.  It makes it appear as if the body and rim diameter of the 222 are smaller than those of the 223, when in fact, the rim and base diameters are the same, and the 222 has slightly less taper giving a slightly larger diameter shoulder.  I'll see if I have a 222 somewhere that I can photograph with a 223, but if not, can someone else fix that? DrHenley (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Photoshop of 22 vs 223