Talk:5.56×45mm NATO

Nitpick

Once again engaging in nitpicking, the title of this article should be should read cartridge rather than caliber and even that would not be technically correct. Ideally, it should be titled "5.56mm NATO", which designates the specific cartridge. Caliber is a measurement of bore diameter, not a specific round designation. 5.56 mm or .224 inches includes a vast number of cartridges, a very abbreviated list of which would include the .218 Bee; .219 Zipper; .222 Remington; .22-250; and .220 Swift. hipshot49

Response to "Relationship to .223 Rem

Well, theoretically rounds meeting either spec (NATO 5.56x45 or SAAMI .223) will chamber and fire, the problem is that tolerances and some dimensions are different, meaning that firing a hot NATO round in a standard SAAMI chamber could result in blowing chunks of receiver at the user's face. Bad Thing™.

Not the only difference. The specifications for military 5.56x45mm ammunition also call for primers with thick, heavy cup material, to make the cartridges less susceptible to slam-firing and firing out-of-battery when used in weapons with floating firing pins, such as the AR15/M16 rifle, and also when used in automatic weapons. Commercial .223 Remington ammunition has no such specification.

Do you guys think we should actually bother with a separate .223 page?

Stiletto Null 03:00:06, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Section "Criticism", First Quote

This is very likely the worst "source" I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's an archived link to a Q&A from a no longer existing part of an "enthusiast web forum", quoting itself an otherwise completely anonymous "Dr. Roberts". I'd have to think hard to make the "source" any worse.

It's about firearms, so chances are high that someone owns this article and would revert any changes by an IP. That's why I won't touch it.

Fix your mess. --84.132.156.94 (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No one "owns" any articles here, it is a community project. Do you have a better source we can use? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You must be new here. Of course someone owns it, and "defends" it against any change, esp. from IPs.

If there is no source, the information has to go. As it currently stand, the section is effectively unsourced. The question should be: Why is it even in the article? --84.132.146.35 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Considering that the cited source also provides a source for the information stated ("Luke Haag's papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem."), I think it is safe to say that this quote is sourced, and should not be removed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

See? That's what I meant. You own this article, and defend its current state with every flimsy argument you can think of.

It's ridiculous of course. We don't know what Haag says. We can be very sure however that the multiple bounces the sourcing makes it simply unsuitable. Just imagine that I would add a new piece of information with a source chain as crappy as this one.

My work here is done. Your effort to weaken one of Wikipedia's foundational rules is noted, but as I said, I don't have the time to argue with an article's owner over this. Have a nice day! --84.132.146.35 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and of course it's a copyvio, but who gives a fuck about that? --84.132.146.35 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You must be new here. I never claimed to own the article, I never weakened any of "Wikipedia's foundational rules", and I didn't use any flimsy arguments. I based my statements on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but you appear to be here just to whine and complain, are not willing to have a discussion or come to a consensus about the issue, and are willing to ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to get your way.

Also, it is not a copyvio if it is a direct quote in a quote template, please read MOS:QUOTE before you make a bigger fool of yourself making claims without knowing the assorted "foundational rules". Have a nice day, and happy editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Just finding my Wiki password again after a PC crash; noticed this page's updates. I didn't see in the original article exactly the element that was being cited, but I was able to smash some of my old brain cells together: the likely reference to "Dr Roberts" is probably referring to Dr Gary Roberts, a dentist who ~20 years ago was pretty heavily involved with ballistic gelatin testing; both he and Martin Fackler supported the Army's ballistics investigations circa 2006. -hh (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

pronounced "five-five-six"

Why is this necessary? It's been removed and added back before, and has been changed between English and phonetics a couple times. No other cartridge article tells you how to pronounce a NUMBER in the first sentence. Ironmatic1 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is M193 listed under ballistic performance?

The US “Cartridge, 5.56mm, ball, M193” was just the US military’s name for .223 Remington, as stated in the article. As such, this cartridge is distinct from the “5.56x45mm NATO” cartridge as it predate’s NATO’s adoption of the SS109 cartridge and is built within the .223 spec (chamber pressure of 52,000PSI, below the spec of 55,000).

As such, I think M193 should be listed in the ballistic performance section in the .223 Remington article rather than this one. 2600:4040:5F52:1600:CD1E:1676:E0C1:43B7 (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)