Ruger Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Resolved controversy of the use of 5.56 mm NATO in Ruger Mini-14

7.2K views 35 replies 16 participants last post by  Iowegan  
#1 ·
I apologise for having posted messages pertaining to the 5.56mm NATO controversy in the following thread:


182 Series with all wood furniture

The controversy has been amply discussed in that thread and I am opening this new thread so that the Administrator of the forum can, perhaps, transfer those posts to this thread.

It seems that this controversy dates back to the 70s, so it has been amply discussed on all media platforms including YouTube.
The reason why I revisited it is because I am a novice and given that the Mini 14s will be around for decades to come, there will be many new novices that may find this useful, especially because this is a dedicated Ruger forum.
 
#2 · (Edited)
I sent ColdBlue 490 two comments. One made in latest post, the other in the Mini ammo post.

To wit: "Dear Sir: I'm posting this comment in this thread because it being the most recent, you are most likely to see it. Your previous thread about whether the Mini-14 can safely shoot 5.56 ammo is in error. I obtained the following from Ruger.com yesterday. It is in the Customer Service section; scroll down to FAQs, and select "Rifles". It is the first question answered. "Q: Can I shoot 5.56 NATO ammunition in my Mini-14
®
or Ranch Rifle? With the exception of the Mini-14
®
Target Rifle, which accepts only .223 Rem. ammunition, .223 Rem. and 5.56 NATO can be used in all Mini-14
®
rifles and Ranch Rifles. Please note that "Military Surplus" 5.56mm NATO can vary greatly in its quality and consistency." I'm posting this with all respect for your knowledge and expertise. Would you please consider taking down the old, erroneous post, and re-doing it? Thanks for your efforts!"

Hopefully he will see them and re-do the erroneous post. We'll see.

I went through the dozens of responses that were written on GunBlue490's video. Probably should have done it earlier!:(

Looking at these makes me wonder if GunBlue490 is confused or if I am....

Image
Image
Image

He clearly says what the Ruger's website says, yet in the video he says the opposite! A rational person would have modified or removed the video, maybe your latest message may help him to act.

For those that have not followed the controversy, in his video
at 7:58, GunBlue490 reads aloud the Ruger instruction manual and concludes that Ruger EXCLUDES 5.52mm because:

" 5.56mm is not a cartridge designation that is used in SAAMI specification for the .223 Remington"

Yet he seems to endorse the opposite in his written comments! Have watched many of his videos and he is clearly very talented and knowledgeable.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Please excuse my ignorance. So am I right to say there are 3 times of ammunition:

1) .223 remington
2) 5.56mm
3) 5.56mm NATO

I thought they were one! So what is the difference between .223 and 5.56mm? Is the 5.56mm a US military round that is older and different to the 5.56mm NATO?

Thank you....
The answer you seek is here, we don't really need yet another thread.

TLDR answer: You are correct, technically 3.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Until your post I thought I now had an understanding of what Mini -14s can use.
It seems I had underestimated the confusion.
That thread is awesome and has a very detailed explanation from a very knowledgeable Iowegan. This is what he states:

1. Any rifle chambered for a 5.56 NATO will safely shoot 223 Rem or M193 5.56x45 ammo.
2. A rifle chambered for 223 Remington is not intended to shoot 5.56 NATO ammo.
3. Ruger SR-556, AR-556, and Mini-14 can safely shoot 223 Remington, 5.56x45, or 5.56 NATO ammo ... the exception being a Mini-14 Target Model, which is strictly a 223 Rem or Mini-14s that were made before 1981, which can shoot 5.56x45 or 223 Rem.
4. Yes, there is a difference in a 223 Rem chamber versus a 5.56 NATO chamber.
5. Yes, there is a difference between 5.56 NATO versus 223 Rem ammo.

So the 181 series (and the ones earlier than that) appear to be NON 5.52 NATO compatible!:oops:

Here is Ruger's manufacturing by year:
Image


I had asked in an earlier post :
Please excuse my ignorance. So am I right to say there are 3 times of ammunition:
1) .223 remington
2) 5.56mm
3) 5.56mm NATO

The answer was no; there is only ONE 5.56.
I contacted an ammo manufacturer and they confirmed that there is ONLY ONE 5.56 mm and it is the NATO one.
Today JOHNNYDOLLAR says that there are 3 and provides IOWEGAN's post to support it.
So I am back to square one.....

Is the 5.52x 45 which is NON NATO available for purchase or is it a historic relique ?
Is the difference the fact that one is made to US Military specs and the NATO is a "newer" post 1980 military spec?
Most of the Mini-14 with all wood furniture appear to be series number up to 182.
The manual of the 180 series Mini-14 says
Image
Image




These models precede the NATO standard that came about in 1980
 
#6 ·
Lol, YouTube dude sez no 556 in a mini14 because he needs clicks. Innocent owner gets triggered and seeks a safe space with gigantic word walls. He probably owns S&W revolvers and that's why he's so worried.

Notice the new, 10 post so far, user name......maybe we're being trolled.
 
#8 ·
Oy vey! Not another one! Please!!!!’ Lolol
It’s not confusing at all. Humans have the greatest ability to confuse things.
 
Save
#9 ·
Controversy? Someone has been smoking too much of the devil's lettuce. I've watched a lot of GunBlue490 and I've never heard anything egregious from him. He seems to give a lot of sound rational advice.

Old Mini-14s were often stamped as 223 Remington as a political move from what I have gathered. Bill Ruger was being proactive, for better or worse, regarding the government and their plans for further regulation of arms.

While there is a lot of great advice online, the manual and the manufacturer should always be your first source of the truth, as others have stated.
 
#12 · (Edited)
They were stamped cal 223, not Remington 223. Saying cal and cartridge are two different terms!
And US 5.56 and Remington 223 55gr FMJBT are the same thing.
And to the OP, there is no controversy.
 

Attachments

#15 · (Edited)
There are a million threads on this topic across countless web forums over many years. There are a million more on the .223/5.56 topic in AR-15 threads all over the web.

It shouldn't be a controversy, but that's the nature of the web. It's difficult to get a definitive answer.

That being said, here's the correct answer and a good way of understaning Ruger's approach to Mini-14 chamberings from the start.

5.56, 7.62x39, 6.8 SPC, and 300 Blk are all military cartridges. The first two are long established. The last two are recent but were designed with military purposes in mind.

When it comes to the Mini, Ruger has only chambered for military cartridges.

As for the Mini-14 in .223/5.56, the chamber itself is comparatively loose to accommodate Military 5.56x45, 5.56 NATO, and .223 Remington, regardless of how the Mini-14 reciever is marked. Only the Mini-14 Target Model was limited to .223 Remington because of it's tighter chamber.

Another exception is the .222 Remington chamber, which was intended for overseas sales in countries that don't allow military calibers in civilian firearms.

You can cut through a lot of confusion by contacting Ruger Support.

This issue is pretty straight forward. Ruger phone support folks will tell you that all Mini-14s from the earliest to the most recent can use .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO. And they don't differentiate between 5.56x45 and 5.56 NATO. The chamber is the right size and strength for 5.56 NATO regardless of how the receiver is stamped, which has changed over the years.

Ruger Support Phone
(336) 949-5200
 
#18 ·
i think its interesting how you all are still calling 5.56 nato and 5.56x45 different again , you all got me on that one on the last one , no wonder you al are embroiled in a bed of confusion , here lets make it simple , .223 and 5.56 ammo cost the same depending on who farts in what state , if your rifle states .223 then go with that
 
#19 ·
Using 223 ammo is very pragmatic and resolves all problems. There will be thousands of novices that will own a Mini-14 in the next decades so it may be worth clearing up the confusion that has brewed since the 70s and is rife on the social platforms.
The post by Iowegan dates back to 2015. He is the source of the information that there are 2 types of 5.56. BigPapa53 had said that there was also a 5.52. I have not come across that ...yet :rolleyes:
Given Iowegan experience, it is worthy of consideration. In his document he says:

In 1980, the 5.56 NATO cartridge was approved for NATO forces which is notably different than 5.56x45 or 223 Rem cartridge.

Further on he says:

It may NOT be safe to shoot 62gr 5.56 NATO in a 223 Rem or 5.56x45 chamber.


I understand he calls the NON NATO 5.56 the 5.56x45 USGI (US Government Issue)

He then says

The only bullet rated for a 5.56 NATO is a 62gr FMJ, in M-855, M-855A1, or SS-109 cartridges. It is quite common to see ammo with a 5.56x45 marking with 55gr bullets and may even have similar head stamps ... but it is NOT NATO ... it is loaded to M193 USGI cartridge specs.

Any clarifying comments welcome
 
#20 ·
#22 ·
There’s some pit picking occurring, to the point that folks might be missing forest for the trees.

M193 was the end result of years of development for a round for use in the AR-15, eventually adopted in US service as the M16 and M16A1.

Eugene Stoner originally designed the AR-15 around the .222 Rem, but when it became obvious it lacked the powder capacity to meet the expected performance of the US military he developed the longer. ”.22 Special”, which eventually became the .223 Rem, in conjunction with Remington and Sierra. The original bullet, as designed by Sierra and later called the “type B“ bullet had a long 7 caliber ogive and a high BC that enabled the round to retain the velocity needed for the 500 yard 10 gauge steel penetration test in the .22 Special/.223 Rem at 55,000 psi with readily available powders.

Remington however used its own shorter 5 caliber ogive, lower BC, “Type A” bullet when developing the M193 round for mass production. The shorter bullet helped address some cold weather marginal stability issues in the 1-14” twist barrels used originally. However, 1-12” twist was later adopted anyway, so it was a wasted effort caused by an initial reluctance by the US Army ordinance folks to adopt 1-12” twist.

Unfortunately the shorter, lower BC bullet lost a lot more velocity with the result it could not meet the 500 yard penetration test. That lead to a series of waivers for increases in maximum pressure and a search for a powder that could achieve the required muzzle velocity within even the higher pressure standards. And ultimately, the required penetration range was shorted by 100 yards anyway. Remington was not willing to use the Sierra bullet and the ordinance folks apparently couldn’t understand why it made a difference.

Remington also introduced its .222 Magnum round and Stoner later said if he’d known Remington was developing it, he’d have just used it instead of developing the .22 Special.

The end result by 1967 was the M193 being adopted and standardized with the shorter Remington bullet with a 58,000 psi maximum average pressure limit, up from the original 55,000 psi limit for the .223 Rem, and a resulting increase in free bore diameter and leade length in the 5.56x45 chamber to address pressure concerns.

Fast forward to the mid 1970s and there was a move to adopt the 5.46x45 as a substitute standard NATO round. NATO however wanted a longer 700m penetration distance and developed the 62 gr SS109 projectile incorporating a steel penetrator. It was ultimately adopted as the NATO standard (not just the substitute standard) in the form of the SS109 NATO (and US M855) round, with a maximum average pressure of 420 MPa (60,900 psi).

It was ironic as the USMC and US Army had been developing a more accurate version of the M16A1 using a heavier barrel and round hand guards. But it was eventually adopted in modified form as the M16A2, with a 1-7” twist to accommodate the very long M856 tracer round, and firing the M855 round with the not very accurate SS109 projectile. Within a decade it was in second line use as troops who could, ditched the now overly long, over weight, and not suitable for use with body armor A2 for the M4.

And of course the M855 round in the short barrel M4 lacked both the soft body effectiveness of the M193 and the long range penetration intended by NATO for the SS109, leading to the present perceived need to develop a new 6.8mm intermediate round.

So, development from the .22 Special to the M193 and the SS109 adopted by NATO
was a fine example of what happens when things get designed by committee with members with competing, and often changing goals and interests.

——-

Technically then .223 Rem, 5.56x45 M193, and 5.56x45 SS109 NATO are three different cartridges with three different maximum average pressure standards and two different chamber specifications.

The NATO cross however seems to be mis understood. A NATO cross head stamp just means the ammunition is compatible with the NATO standard and is safe to fire in NATO weapons.

Thus you will find M193 ammunition that is indeed compatible with NATO 5.56x45 firearms even though it is not the “NATO standardized“ SS109 round. That was in fact the case from 1980 when NATO adopted the SS109 until late 1983 when the US military finally adopted the M16A2.

You‘ll also find numerous examples of 7.62 NATO ammunition with the NATO cross that isn’t the NATO “standard” either. You’ll find 7.62 NATO rounds with projectiles weighing 143 to 155 gr that are more or less M80 equivalent rounds, all with the NATO cross denoting compatibility with 7.62 NATO chambered weapons.
 
#23 · (Edited)
The original US 5.56x45 55gr. (M193)is pre NATO anything! The Remington 223 55gr FMJBT is the same as 5.56x45 55gr.
The biggest issue is leade.
It’s not complicated.
The biggest difference in pressure rating is where SAAMI and CIP take the measurements.
And whoever said there wasn’t a non NATO 5.56x45 is wrong.
notice in the pic “parent case” 223 Remington M193”. What is M193 if not 5.56x45? And what were we shooting in Vietnam and later until 1980?
Image
 
Save
#24 ·
A little more added .... the case of the cartridge and the bullet diameter is what the military uses as a cartridge designator. All 223 Rem, M-193, a 5.56 NATO cartridges share the same 5.56mm (bullet diameter) and 45mm case length. As Sr40Ken stated, the US Military cartridge 5.56x45mm and the civilian 223 Rem are virtually identical .... same bullet (55gr), same velocity, same chamber dimensions, same chamber pressure. Where it gets wormy is .... the Belgians just didn't like having the M-16 shoved down their throat as a standard NATO battle rifle. As such, they made some changes to the military cartridge and came up with the 5.56 NATO cartridge. The USA accepted the 62 gr bullet as a compromise so the M-16 could be used. The 5.56 NATO is now loaded with a 62gr bullet and because the bullet's ogive is located farther forward to improve its ballistic coefficient, the rifle requires a .040" deeper chamber leade.

From 1970 to 1980, NATO approved the M-193 cartridge with a 55gr bullet. In 1980, the Belgians in Herstal changed the bullet weight to 62gr, which also changed the chamber dimensions. As you should be able to see .... there was no such thing as a 62gr 5.56 NATO cartridge before 1980 so it would be impossible for a Mini-14 to have the current 5.56 NATO chamber unless it was made after 1980. Earlier Mini-14s were marked "5.56x45" or 223 Remington, but NOT 5.56 NATO. So .... 5.56 NATO and 5.56x45mm are NOT the same.

Here's a link that provides the history and transition for 5.56x45mm and 5.56 NATO cartridges. 5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia
 
#29 · (Edited)
A little more added .... the case of the cartridge and the bullet diameter is what the military uses as a cartridge designator. All 223 Rem, M-193, a 5.56 NATO cartridges share the same 5.56mm (bullet diameter) and 45mm case length. As Sr40Ken stated, the US Military cartridge 5.56x45mm and the civilian 223 Rem are virtually identical .... same bullet (55gr), same velocity, same chamber dimensions, same chamber pressure. Where it gets wormy is .... the Belgians just didn't like having the M-16 shoved down their throat as a standard NATO battle rifle. As such, they made some changes to the military cartridge and came up with the 5.56 NATO cartridge. The USA accepted the 62 gr bullet as a compromise so the M-16 could be used. The 5.56 NATO is now loaded with a 62gr bullet and because the bullet's ogive is located farther forward to improve its ballistic coefficient, the rifle requires a .040" deeper chamber leade.

From 1970 to 1980, NATO approved the M-193 cartridge with a 55gr bullet. In 1980, the Belgians in Herstal changed the bullet weight to 62gr, which also changed the chamber dimensions. As you should be able to see .... there was no such thing as a 62gr 5.56 NATO cartridge before 1980 so it would be impossible for a Mini-14 to have the current 5.56 NATO chamber unless it was made after 1980. Earlier Mini-14s were marked "5.56x45" or 223 Remington, but NOT 5.56 NATO. So .... 5.56 NATO and 5.56x45mm are NOT the same.

Here's a link that provides the history and transition for 5.56x45mm and 5.56 NATO cartridges. 5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia
Really appreciate the input. The answer to JohnnyDollar's question is: yes, probably both peppered with loads of inexperience. (Please note that there are probably many RUGER FORUM members that have just now learned that there are 3 calibers).

I have researched the early Mini14s a little more and it will not surprise you I have conflicting information.
Some say the 182 series was built in 1980, some (including Ruger) say 1981. Not much there, but your detailed article says:

Ruger SR-556, AR-556, and Mini-14 can safely shoot 223 Remington, 5.56x45, or 5.56 NATO ammo ... the exception being a Mini-14 Target Model, which is strictly a 223 Rem or Mini-14s that were made before 1981, which can shoot 5.56x45 or 223 Rem.

This makes a lot of sense because the NATO standard came in 1980 or thereabouts.

Not sure if you can shine any light on my next conflict:

Ruger FAQ says:
Image
















They seem to say that ALL Mini 14s (except the Target model) can use 5.56 NATO. How could they possibly chamber a rifle to a standard that did not exist in the pre 1981 period? Could this be an oversight by Ruger?
 
#26 · (Edited)
The ultimate and definitive answer to this question is contained within the Ruger.com FAQ cited above.

Anecdotally, I have been shooting commercial .223 ammo, Milsurp 5.56 ammo (both 55 gn and 62gn bullets), and very carefully made Milsurp-equivalent handloads in both my Mini-14 and my AR with absolutely zero problems.
 
#28 ·
I have tubs of SA milsurp ammo and have run them through my SA Super Match M1a with zero problems. The only caution I have about SA ammo is to weigh each ctg, because there are significant weight differences between some SA ctgs, presumably due to powder "drop". Once the SA ctgs are segregated by weight the typical SA "flyers" go away.
 
#31 ·
i havnt experienced any accuracy issues with the SA stuff , i only have one batch and i bought everything the guy had , i had some a while before i got ths last batch albeit not the quantity , but i was impressed by it , i like it as much asthe Hertinberg stuff , i run both through a LR308 as well with the same consistency
 
#32 · (Edited)
All very good, well researched info about .223/5.56 in general, but not all details are applicable to the Mini-14 in particular.

According to Ruger the Mini-14 chamber was "loose" from the beginning before 1980. Ruger hasn't changed the chamber print because they didn't have to.

The standard Mini-14 before 1980 and after can safely fire 5.56 NATO SS109/M855.

We get that answer whether we look at the FAQ at Ruger.com or call Ruger support at 336-949-5200. Continuing to ask people to interpret Ruger's final answer is the epitome of beating the proverbial dead horse. You've got the answer straight from the horse's mouth. Not the dead horse, but a different and living horse of course.

Considering Ruger's reputation for erring on the side of caution, if they aren't worried about 5.56 NATO in their Mini-14s, no one else should be worried either.

I affectionately, half-jokingly describe my original Mini-30 manual from 1989 as 3 pages of instruction and 17 pages of warnings and caution. If Ruger had the opportunity to add more caution concerning any of their firearms they would jump at the chance! :LOL:

Safety and accuracy are two different concerns however. Ruger has changed the barrel twist rate several times from the beginning, 1-in-10 to 1-in-7 to 1-in-9. Everyone still has to find the round that shoots best in their Mini.

Anyway, Sturm, Ruger & Co.Inc. has spoken definitively on this topic about the Mini-14, and that's the final word.


Scroll down to the drop-down box and select 'Rifles.' At this writing the question about shooting 5.56 NATO in the Mini-14 is the first question.

Ruger live person phone Support at 336-949-5200 will clarify a bit more if you ask them if all Mini-14s, old and new, can safely shoot 5.56 NATO. The answer is yes.
 
#33 · (Edited)
Perhaps the real question is:
Why do you want to shoot M855 in an early Mini-14?
Seems to me to be a lot of angst over one cartridge, out of dozens of cartridge choices available.

I have a 182 series Mini-14 (1981) and while I have shot M855 through it over the years without incident,
it certainly was not the most accurate ammo I shot with it.
After I read through Iowegan's explanation a few times, I can accept the idea that it's not the best ammo choice.
Not to mention that you are talking about M193 @ 55,000psi chamber pressure vs. M855 @ 62,000+ psi.
Not a huge difference, but you may even be pushing it a bit higher with a non-NATO chamber.
I say MAY, because unless you have a way to measure the chamber pressure, you don't really know.
Perhaps Ruger has done this and confirmed M855 is GTG in their earliest Mini-14's.

I have a Colt M16a1 USGI surplus upper that I purchased to build my retro AR.
It was never designed to shoot M855.
During the transition to the M16a2 and M855 ammo, the US Army policy was that M855 could be shot in the M16a1 under combat conditions if needed.
But, with the 1/12 twist pencil barrel, it's not an optimal choice for that A1 upper
so, I simply shoot M193 or .223 ammo in it.

ETA:
Ruger puts in writing that you can shoot 5.56 NATO in all Mini-14's, so it's pretty hard to argue with that.

Seems like a win-win to me.
1) you can shoot that cartridge in your early Mini.
2) if, by some chance, you suffer a catastrophic failure due to using the NATO round,
you (or your surviving heirs) probably have a lawsuit. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beck and Bepe
Save
#34 ·
The simple answer to this recurring question is to consider that Ruger has put in writing that their Minis, except the discontinued target model, are safe to shoot higher pressure, 5.56 NATO ammo.

Further, Ruger has a team of lawyers who's primary job is to keep Ruger and it's employees from doing or saying something that will get them sued.

Finally, Ruger CS has repeatedly stated that 5.56 NATO ammo is safe to shoot in their Minis, except for their discontinued target model, but that they don't have a Wylde chamber.

I talked to Ruger's Tech Support in 2015 and asked if their chamber spec was a Wylde chamber and they said it wasn't but that the lead of their chamber is longer than spec for a .223 which allows one to shoot 5.56 NATO level ammo.

It sounds to me that this is simply a variation of the Wylde chamber, enough so that Ruger doesn't have to call it a Wylde chamber and therefore pay royalties to Wylde for their design and nothing more.

What part of "Yes" are you all having trouble understanding? Can we just stop with this nonsense and get on with it, please?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.