.223 Theoretical Question

[Nightcrawler]

Let's say that, back in the 60s, when the Army was dickering around with ideas for a new service rifle, they abandoned the idea of a fully automatic individual rifle and stuck with the 7.62mm cartridge. Perhaps they would have modified the M14 in some way, maybe shortened it and lightened it.

Anyway, the .223 round would still exist, it just wouldn't have been adopted as the standard service round.

Had we not adopted .223, it's doubtful that the rest of NATO would have either.

So. What, then, would be the state of .223 today? Would .223 semiauto rifles still be as popular? Would law enforcement be using AR-15 carbines as they often are now? What do you think?


(Interestingly enough, the Army actually did abandon the full auto individual rifle in the M16A2. They also gave it a heavier barrel and longer-ranged sights, trying to turn the lightweight select fire assault rifle into a battle rifle. Back to the future, I guess.)

 

[BigG]

The 223 was actually developed for the AR15 (Gene Stoner and another guy whose name escapes me right now). They were experimenting with the 222 Rem and the 222 Rem Mag (IIRC). The 222 could not perform within the ballistic parameters that the designer had set for the weapon. I forget the reason the 222 RM fell by the wayside. Anyway, it's all in The Black Rifle.

Most of the questions I've seen on TFL or AR15.com are very neatly answered by this book. The only down side is it's about $60.

I gladly bought a copy because it's about the only one out there that really cuts thru the BS and gives factual info and I love my AR15s. When one preban costs over $1000, $60 is a pretty small price to pay.

 

[Art Eatman]

"What, then, would be the state of .223 today?"

There wouldn't be one, since it was developed for the rifle, not the other way around. Of course, somebody might have modified a .222 Rem or .222 Rem Mag to create a similar mid-performance centerfire .22.

"Would .223 semiauto rifles still be as popular?"

It's possible Bill Ruger would have created the Mini around either the .222 Rem or some new but similar proprietary cartridge.

"Would law enforcement be using AR-15 carbines as they often are now?"

Had there not been a market for the individual full-auto weapon, Stoner might have done other things with other ideas, and so the shape and style of the AR 15 as we know it might never have come about. (There's no way to know, absent asking Stoner.) So, law enforcement would still be using either bolt action high power (useful during the Charles Whitman episode) or some semi-auto (which is fully adequate for any law-enforcement task.)

Art

 

[Gomez]

We started with the .30-06. Downsized it to .308. Without the .223/AR era, I'd bet we would of seen another downsizing into something like the 7.62 X 39 ComBloc. Without the plastic and aluminum AR coming around, we'd a probably stayed with wood and steel and the "hot ticket" would be something akin to a Mini-14 in a short .30 cal cartridge. Kind of like the Mini-30, but with a stronger M14 flavor. Just some thoughts.

 

[Correia]

Wow. Interesting question.

Art, I've got to disagree with you. The AR15 (and therfore the .223) would have been developed no matter what. It was really just a lucky break for Armalite and Stoner to have the military adopt it, especially as its main gun. Lots of guns are developed, few are adopted.

I can see the AR being picked up by police departments, and by lots of regular folks just like now. However I do not think that it would have been adopted in nearly the numbers. In fact it would probably be a small niche gun amongst us true enthusiasts.

I think that guns like the Mini-14 (more similar to the standard issue M14) and the AR-18 (much cheaper to make) would have become the dominant small caliber, light weight rifle amongst civillians.

But with the early .223 only existing in the AR, .223 would have been a niche cartridge. The Mini would have never been invented. The AR-18 probably still would have, but mostly to replace the AR15 in hopes of getting it adopted by other countries (especially poor countries as was the original intent).

None of the European .223 weapons would have been developed. With out us pushing around NATO there would never have switched.

In fact that makes for and even more interesting alternative history. What if we had agreed with the rest of NATO to begin with? We shoved the .308 down their throats. The Brits loved their new .280. Flat shooting, low recoil, good SD, good penetration, better power than a .223, lighter than a .308, whats not to love? Plus similar to what John C. Garand envisioned originally from his great rifle.

Then we would have adopted a .280 FAL. (the original FAL was not .308, they redesigned it because of us). Or perhaps a .280 M14 (which would probably have been far more controllable on FA, look at Rob Leatham's mutant .260 M1a he has used in competition with an E2 stock, that is one controllable major power factor rifle).

If that had been the case with lighter rifles in the 1950 and 1960s there never would have been an AR15 or a .223. The reason to build it would never had existed. The AR10 (in .280) would be developed as a lighter aluminum battle rifle, and it may have made some inroads.

Plus the M60 would not have existed. The SAW concept would have started a lot sooner with ammo compatibility amongst the entire unit.

The Art of the Rifle on TFL would be a lot quieter place, because we would not be having constant arguments about .223 vs. .308 because neither existed, and we were all happy with our .280 FALs. I just don't think the .280 vs. 30-06 arguments would be nearly as heated.

 

[uglygun]

243Winchester possibly?


6mm chamberings have a long history of being looked at long and hard by various military branches around the world.

Maybe an intermediate or maybe a full power loading.

If not the 243Win, maybe something along the lines of an adapted 22-250?


Something that would work with the large amounts of rifles out there already using a 308Win bolt face and could be modified pretty easily with a new barrel and chamber. Semiautos would be made to fit to the chambering.

 

[Art Eatman]

Correia, I don't disagree with your line of argument, except that the primary point in this discussion lies in Nightcrawler's opening paragraph.

The reason for a .223 cartridge lies in the military doctrine of suppressive fire instead of aimed fire, and the concomitant need to carry larger amounts of ammunition by an individual soldier. The hypothesis was semi-auto; ergo no need.

Stoner's design ideas were predicated on a light and handy selective fire weapon. Only he could have any idea about other design concepts. Part of the AR15 design speaks to the need to control the weapon during full-auto fire.

This is all supposition, and to ignore military doctrine skews the direction in reasoning...

Art

 

[Correia]

Good point Art. I had not thought of doctrine. I'm just an aimed fire kind of rifleman myself. Skews my perception.

 

[Art Eatman]

Yeah, well, welcome to the club.

, Art

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Interesting question. You know that Thompson had a hell of a time with the Thompson submachinegun. It was late for WWI and since the military did not need it, they thumbed their noses at him and so for a lot of years, the gun was sold mail order and in hardware stores, but never making too much of an impact. Cops and gansters made them more popular, but generally the market was limited. WWII helped, but then they were too expensive to make and eventually the military stopped making them.

Think for a minute what would have happened with the .45 acp and the 1911 had the military not adopted the 1911. Say Luger had gotten the contract and the sidearm of the military turned out to be the Luger in WWI and WWII. Would the 1911 be as popular or the .45? Not likely. Part of what has managed to make various models of guns very popular in the civilian market has been the use of the arms by folks in the military market who finish their service and then decide they want a gun like they had in the service because they know it so well, liked it, felt secure with it by their side, etc.

There are some very good calibers out there and some very good weapons that never receive the attention merited by quality, in part because they were not military weapons and were not seen in sufficient numbers to ever be hugely popular in what can only be described as a very limited market.

 

[uglygun]

Ahhh... but didn't the military decide that they wanted to return to the 45 caliber bullets again after finding out how pathetic the 38s were?


Luger had made 2 Lugers chambered in 45ACP for the Gov't. and they were competitors against the 1911, if memory serves correctly.


The military looked back at the 45LC and decided that it had benefits over that of the 38s and wanted a modernized 45 caliber.

 

[uglygun]

Forgot one other little thing that is history related, didn't think of it until this morning.

Don't count out the AR10 which came before the AR15 and was meant to be a competitor with the L1A and M14s if I remember correct.


The link between the AR10 and the AR15 is undeniable, while the 223Remington might not have come about without the help of the AR15/M16 it is likely that an adaptations would have been made to both rifles if the military hadn't made the 223Rem. a standarized round of sorts.

Focus might have shifted away from a military role and maybe the rifle would have evolved into more of a civilian sport rifle, now telling what they might have changed it into or chambered it in to make it marketable to civilians or maybe law enforcement.


I think the AR action type was sort of destined to be, even if the military didn't wind up accepting it.

 

[BigG]

The Armalite AR10 was a good bet to be well accepted except for the fact that it had a titanium bbl and the thing split at a critical moment during a test. Stoner immediately built a steel bbl but the testers had lost interest. This is per The Black Rifle. (Another reason to add it to your library)

 

[James K]

The .223 was developed for the military because, IIRC, the .222 Magnum did not have a long enough case neck. This is critical in feeding for auto weapons to ensure that the bullet is gripped hard enough that it won't be driven into the case in feeding. Also, the .223 has better overall ballistics.

The AR-15 sort of happened along, but Colt and Cooper-McDonald put a lot of money into a propaganda and lobbying campaign against the M14 and for the AR-15. "The Black Rifle" tells only part of the story.

There was also pressure from another source. JFK visited a Navy SEAL team at Norfolk, and they let him fire one of their AR-15's. He was so impressed that he ordered the Army to "reconsider" its rejection of the rifle.

As to the .45, the round was chosen before its famous pistol was adopted, and Colt produced the 1905 for the caliber. Luger also made two guns in .45ACP for U.S. tests because the caliber was mandated.

Jim

 

[uglygun]

Having had a 222Remington and comparing to a 223Remington, the cases of the 222Rem seem to actually have more neck than the 223Rem.


Is the 222Rem. Mag share it's case deminsions with those of the 222Remington? Or does it have a slight changes with increased case volume that eats into the length of the neck?