[billt]

Originally Posted by TCH2FLY

Perhaps you care to explain what you mean by "step up to 5.56" from .223. Frankly it makes no sense.

I think he was being sarcastic.

[Vincine]

Originally Posted by billt

I think he was being sarcastic.

I don’t think so. I found lots of stuff about it being okay to use a .223 in a 5.56 rifle, but lots of warning about using a 5.56 round in a .223 rifle. Apparently the 5.56 is provides higher pressure. As to whether this results in a straighter flight or harder hit, I don’t know. I couldn’t find ballistic charts on each seperately. They're both lumped together under .223.

I found this:

http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/556-223-Ammunition-Ch-t22582.html

>The primary difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 x 45 mm is that .223 is loaded to lower pressures and velocities compared to 5.56 mm. .223 Remington ammunition can be safely fired in a 5.56 mm chambered gun, but the reverse can be an unsafe combination. The additional pressure created by 5.56 mm ammo will frequently cause over-pressure problems such as difficult extraction, flowing brass, or popped primers, but in extreme cases, could damage or destroy the rifle. Chambers cut to .223 Remington specifications have a shorter leade (throat) area as well as slightly shorter headspace dimensions compared to 5.56 mm "military" chamber specs, which contributes to the pressure issues.<

[TCH2FLY]

I'm not going to get into the whole 5.56 into a .223 chamber thing ... it has been beaten to death.

I am more puzzled as to why he suggests that the 5.56 is a "step up" or that it is more suitable for hunting than .223.

Any attempt at sarcasm is lost on me, I did not see any relevance to the thread or any posts.

[ACRhino]

Originally Posted by TCH2FLY

I'm not going to get into the whole 5.56 into a .223 chamber thing ... it has been beaten to death.

I am more puzzled as to why he suggests that the 5.56 is a "step up" or that it is more suitable for hunting than .223.

Any attempt at sarcasm is lost on me, I did not see any relevance to the thread or any posts.

Maybe because 5.56 is 24.932735426008968609865470852018 bigger than .223?

[billt]

If I had a dollar for every round of 5.56 MM I fired in .223 chambers, I wouldn't have to wait until 62 to retire.

[Txhillbilly]

Originally Posted by billt

If I had a dollar for every round of 5.56 MM I fired in .223 chambers, I wouldn't have to wait until 62 to retire.

Amen,Brother.

Vincine,If the intended purpose of the rifle is just target shooting or small game hunting,a 223 caliber weapon will serve you very well,especially if your shooting 300 yards or less.If you intend on hunting bigger game,then a 308 would be better.But ammo cost will be a lot higher with the 308.
A standard length rifle stock shouldn't be a problem,but as others have said,a thicker recoil pad will solve any length problem.
Being that you live in NY,I'd stay away from the AR platform.You just never know what the elected elite are going to think up next about "Evil" black rifles.

Savage,CZ-USA,Howa,and Remington all make rifles that will shoot MOA or less out of the box,and even better with a little work and fine tuning.

[Vincine]

Originally Posted by Txhillbilly

Vincine,If the intended purpose of the rifle is just target shooting or small game hunting,a 223 caliber weapon will serve you very well,especially if your shooting 300 yards or less. . (snip) . . Savage,CZ-USA,Howa,and Remington all make rifles that will shoot MOA or less out of the box,and even better with a little work and fine tuning.

Thanks. Next stop; Checking out the range.