556 vs 223 corrosion

Help Support Ruger Forum:

jjacob

Bearcat
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
14
I read that 556 NATO ammo is less corrosive than 223 commercial ammo. Anyone know anything about this? Ar 556 barrel is not chrome lined.
 

DGW1949

Hunter
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,916
Location
Texas
jjacob said:
I read that 556 NATO ammo is less corrosive than 223 commercial ammo. Anyone know anything about this? Ar 556 barrel is not chrome lined.

Me thinks that you are confusing the possible dangers involved with using old-school "corrosive ammo" with the possibly different effects of 5.56 VS .223 ammo in terms of increased throat erosion and bore wear.
If I'm right about that, I'm almost certain that your concern has much more to do with things like "which" powder, bullet, pressure and velocity used by "which" manufacturer, than it has to do with the respective cartridge designations.

In other words, .223 and 5.56 are both produced by many different firms, in many different counties...which means that none of them use the exact-same components, nor are they all made to the same-exact performance standards relative to pressures and velocity...so it follows that some of it will indeed "eat your barrel faster" than others...There's been quite a bit of testing in that respect which can be found by doing a simple google search...

Hoped this helped.

DGW
 

jjacob

Bearcat
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
14
Actually, I assumed it was military spec on the powder itself. I Read these somewhere...

* "It's OK, though, that the barrel is not chrome lined, since you're unlikely to encounter corrosive 5.56NATO, and really, all you'd need to do is run a boresnake covered in machine oil to keep the bore unrusted if you did."

* "This, combined with a very corrosive powder and the wet jungle environment of Vietnam, caused countless deaths to our own troops mainly because of failures to extract the spent round in the chamber during combat"

Want to keep the gun as clean as possible.

thanks for the response.
 

9x19

Hunter
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
2,558
Location
Texas
I'm not sure of the source for those quotes, but seriously, find a new one...

"Corrosive" ammo was never classified as such due to the powder, but rather the priming compound.

The problem with early 5.56 ammo was powder related but had nothing to do with corrosion, rather it was a fouling issue, between "dirty" (lots of residue being sent down the gas tube) powder and un-plated gas keys... that and a poor field cleaning kit (nothing to clean that gas key included).

Modern commercial ammo has none of those issues, regardless if it's maked .223 or 5.56.
 

DGW1949

Hunter
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,916
Location
Texas
As 9X19 said, there were many documented failures of the early M-16 during combat, a lot of which turned out to be related to the ammo being issued at the time. Exactly none of them however, had anything to do with "corrosive 5.56 ammo", because there has never been such a thing, not even way back then.

DGW
 

jjacob

Bearcat
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
14
Thanks for the input. Just wanted to be sure I'm not trashing the barrel because it is not chrome lined.I don't believe Springfields new 556/223 barrel is either,but most Ar's seem to be.
thanks
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,810
Location
Woodbury, Tn
I had always heard the early failures in combat had to do with the moisture in the jungles causing rust, and pitting of the firing chamber. When a cartridge was fired , the brass casing was fire formed into the pits making extraction a problem.
gramps
 

22/45 Fan

Hunter
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
2,123
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
DGW1949 said:
As 9X19 said, there were many documented failures of the early M-16 during combat, a lot of which turned out to be related to the ammo being issued at the time. Exactly none of them however, had anything to do with "corrosive 5.56 ammo", because there has never been such a thing, not even way back then.
That's correct. As I understand it the major ammo problem was the switch from "stick" powder to "ball" powder early in the service life of the M16. The new ammo wasn't tested adequately. Its pressure curve changed and the "timing" of the gun was thrown off causing feed and extraction problems. Gas operated semi-autos require a predictable pressure profile and minor changes can alter it significantly.
 

wwb

Hunter
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
2,867
Location
wisconsin
A little first-hand experience here.....

I'm not certain if "dirty powder" was the cause, or if it was just the terrible conditions combined with poor or infrequent cleaning of the bolt, bolt carrier group, and chamber, but the most common failure of the early M16 rifles was a failure to return to battery. Extraction and ejection problems were extremely rare. The addition of the forward assist took care of the failure to return to battery problem.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
9,936
Location
missouri
"I read that 556 NATO ammo is less corrosive than 223 commercial ammo"

The only "corrosive ammo" issues I'd connect with the .223 is the particularly nasty powder fouling left by European steel cased ammo. The fouling builds up and makes cleaning difficult and most likely holds moisture to boot.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,435
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
For what little 556 & 223 ammo I've bought and stored was all made in America.... my only concern in regards to this discussion is that the way the world of manufacturing works these days I would be very careful in buying either in bulk and cheap... and to check where it is made. Seems the Russians and such love to make large amounts of ammo to sell to us and from my experience with shooting that stuff.. it might not be corrosive... but it sure is dirty....

few years ago I had to supply rifles for a shoot... guy brought his AK-47 and some Russian/ Commie block ammo to shoot in it... seems the guys loading mags loaded some of that and shot it in my mini-30.... all my other rifles that we shot 'good / USA' ammo in ... were still 'clean' after the shoot... the mini-30 looked like somebody had poured mud down the barrel.
 

DGW1949

Hunter
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,916
Location
Texas
Mobuck said:
"I read that 556 NATO ammo is less corrosive than 223 commercial ammo"

The only "corrosive ammo" issues I'd connect with the .223 is the particularly nasty powder fouling left by European steel cased ammo. The fouling builds up and makes cleaning difficult and most likely holds moisture to boot.


True that...plus, that "crud" you're speaking of also contains a certain amount of carbon, while not corrosive, is surely abrasive. Noteworthy also, is that most com-block ammo uses a steel jacketed bullet, which whether a particular example happens to be "copper plated" or not, aint exactly helping with bore life either.

I wouldn't run the stuff through my gun, even if they was giving it away for free...that's my take on it.

DGW
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,435
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
I have to admit I have a good bit of commie block ammo, I even have a couple thousand rounds of corrosive Chinese stuff... but it's all stored down deep in my ammo stock for WTSHTF or I just need to sell the crap to buy food or something...
 

DGW1949

Hunter
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
3,916
Location
Texas
blume357 said:
I have to admit I have a good bit of commie block ammo, I even have a couple thousand rounds of corrosive Chinese stuff... but it's all stored down deep in my ammo stock for WTSHTF or I just need to sell the crap to buy food or something...

I'm hearing ya Blume.
Even crappy ammo store's easy, doesn't eat much, and has always been easy to sell during the times of panic which we've all seen...and will likely see again, sooner or later.

DGW
 
Top