223/5.56 Ammo Ban Effects

[Alpherjo]

Hi all. I recently decided on purchasing a 5.56 rifle, primarily for target shooting, and to have around in case a coyote wanders into the yard. I chose this caliber due to the fact that it's a good overall caliber for coyotes, doesn't have a lot of recoil, and ammo is generally cheaper than something like a 22-250 or .243.

I'm now reading about the possible ammo ban for 223/5.56 ammo. It sounds like it's for only certain types of ammo, but I'm not totally clear on what type exactly, and if that type takes up a large selection of the currently available choices.

Another question is will ammo prices rise for this caliber if the ban happens?

Thanks for any insight!

[silvermane_1]

Alpherjo, well if you get a rifle/carbine chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, you shoot .223 Rem. with it, now here is a "kicker", it's not a good idea to shoot 5.56 NATO in a semi-auto rifle/carbine chambered in .223 Rem, the "exceptions" would be a Saigas/VEPRs in .223, they have to be "chambered" in .223 Rem for the importation clause/rules, but those AKs can and will shoot 5.56 NATO without a hiccup, another one would be a Ruger Mini-14/Ranch Rifle, they simply say .223 cal on the receiver(shoots 5.56 NATO just fine), only the target models are .223 Rem only.

[stagpanther]

The (proposed but not enforced) ban was for a type of penetrator ammo--not something you would want to use for hunting anyway.

[jmr40]

The only ban even proposed, and it was quickly shot down, was to ban some loads with steel cores. Armor piercing ammo has been banned for some time. Someone briefly mis-identified some types of military surplus ammo as armor piercing. The correction was made and the proposed ban dropped.

Even if the ban had been allowed to go through it would have only banned the sale of some types of ammo. 223 and 5.56 will continue to be plentiful and among the cheapest ammo you can buy.

[tirod]

Welcome to the forums. You picked a good choice, 5.56 is taxpayer subsidized and that is what makes it inexpensive. Non-military cartridges aren't so cheap, it takes handloading to reduce the costs.

A $200 set of tools would start that in cartridges that aren't milspec, plus reduce the costs of loading varieties that are expensive regardless, like 77gr OTM which is the preferred round used by DMR or MK18 shooters.

What was proposed to be banned was M855 which has a steel penetrator. That was due to the ATF responding to their Executive leaderships decision to politicize the issue of what should be sold on the market. Said senior Executive has an anti gun and specific anti AR agenda. The ATF has only tabled the ban at present. They never said it wouldn't reappear.

I'm now reading about the possible ammo ban for 223/5.56 ammo.

While not currently active on their agenda, it does accurately express the intent of their end game, and it's the average shooter not in touch with current events who thinks they will never see it again. It will come back - many governments worldwide practice a "no service cartridge" policy for civilian firearms and enforce it. I fully expect the next service round to be classified that way - National Security will be invoked.

Enjoy your new rifle and do consider getting into reloading. 5.56 is going to be around for quite a while, it's the next service cartridge we won't likely get our hands on.

[Alpherjo]

Thanks a bunch for all the replies! That definitely answers my question and more. I think making sure I get something approved for 5.56 NATO is the right choice for me.

[Mobuck]

I think the OP is seriously confused about the "ammo ban". I'm not aware of an "ammo ban" on any .223/5.56--at least not in most areas of the country. Regarding the ill-fated 855 ammo incident: most people have little or no use for this type of ammo BUT that should not be a factor. Need and want are totally different and this country revolves around being able to have what we want.

[Flapjack23]

Regarding the price increase portion of your post, if (when) there is another threat of an ammo ban (such as the M855 proposal) ammo prices will increase in the short term, just like happened recently. That basically triggers a lot of shooters to "stock up" in case a ban actually occurs. Ammo becomes scarce and prices go up. After the threat passes (some time) the prices typically creep back down.

I would suggest that you buy more than you shoot while things are calm and prices relatively stable so that if (when) another threat arises you can stop buying and keep shooting.

[marine6680]

While I personally do not shoot the 855, nor have a need for it.

It was a cheap ammo source for many. Factory seconds and over runs from military contract runs.

This helped keep a lot of 5.56 and 223 ammo prices low.


I don't think the proposed ban was founded... and I am glad it was shot down for now at least. I don't need to personally shoot the stuff to be against the ban.


Plus, such a ban would have increased the military's cost for ammo, as the ability to sell over runs and seconds on the private market, lowered the cost of meeting the military standards.

[Tikka_shooter]

silvermane_1
Kinda correct.
From Ruger's website it used to be in the FAQs:
"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."


My ARs have a Wylde chamber; they shoot .223 or 5.56 with no issues.


These guys have nailed it:
"A few AR15 manufacturers incorporate the use of a hybrid chamber specification known as the Wylde chamber. Designed by and named after Bill Wylde, the Wylde chamber was designed to accurately shoot the military ball ammo of the day while still feeding reliably. Coincidentally, it shoots the longer 80 gr bullets commonly used in the sport of Highpower Rifle Competition very well and is one of the preferred chambers for that use. While the Wylde chamber allows for optimal seating depth of 80 grain bullets over .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO, it is capable of accepting both ammunition types. The Wylde chamber is used by a few manufacturers who sell "National Match" configuration AR-15 rifle. "
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=483719

The Wylde shoots "match" .223 ammo or 5.56. My Barnes shoots M193 very accurately and ~.5 MOA with .223 Match ammo or any weight .223 very accurately.
The Winchester white box 45gr @ 3600 are a hoot.

[dakota.potts]

If you just want something for target shooting and coyote hunting, it's not necessarily important (in my opinion) that you get something chambered for 5.56. There is brass cased .223 available which is cheaper than the majority of 5.56 and performs pretty much the same role. If you do want something that will take the 5.56 rounds though, I recommend an AR15 for everything you've described. I've not seen a modern one that would not take the 5.56 NATO round, but you should of course verify before purchasing or shooting.

[kraigwy]

I'm now reading about the possible ammo ban for 223/5.56 ammo

You will never see a ban on 223/5.56 any more they you'll see a ban on 308/7.62, '06, 30-40 Krag, 45-70, 45 ACP or 9mm.

Once the military adopts a round, its here to stay.

You might see an attempt to ban a certain type of 223/5.56 (which didn't pan out) but the round itself isn't going anywhere.

In 1903 Teddy Roosevelt believed that every US Citizen should learn to use military type arms. He believed the government should provide military arms and training to the people.

The National Matches and Division of Civilian Marksmanship and the Small Arms Firing School was established by Congress to that end.

In 1996 anti gunner legislators decided to cut funding for the DCM/National Matches. In part that was accomplished. Fed. Funding was cut, but replaced by a Charter by congress to the establish the Civilian Marksmanship Program, it which the task of the DCM was turned over to civilians. Military surplus arms and training is still their mission, but funding would be provided by the sales of surplus arms, equipment.

The Civilian management expanded the program, in reality, beyond President Roosevelt's expectations.

The CMP still is under charter to conduct the National Matches, including the Small Arms Firing Schools (taught by the military services for the most part).

The DCM/CMP teamed up with the NRA to conduct the National Matches. The DCM, now the CMP conducts the service rifle portion of the National Matches and those matches require the use of military weapons and ammo, which means the 223/5.56 and the other rounds I mentioned above.

Our founders (if you read their thoughts in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere) met that the people, (civilians) be armed with the same weapons as the military. They are the militia. Roosevelt, the DCM, and the congress of 1904 agreed and the CMP and congress of 1996 agreed.

The CMP's Charter of 1996 was a defacto improvement of the DCM program, if you dealt with both, the DCM and CMP, you will see how the CMP has expanded the program more then it could ever have been expanded if dependent on fed Funds.

In short, to answer the OPs question, don't ever fear the purchase of a rifle because you think that it shoots a military family of ammo. It isn't going to happen.

[tirod]

The "ban" was only on M855 and was proposed because it "endangered" cops. The law citing that it could be banned was written for pistol ammo, tho. Some blame the owners of AR15 pistols as the cause, but the reality is that no cops are shot with the stuff using that gun. It was a workaround by the Administration to get some sort of advancement on their anti gun agenda.

As for M855, it very much is used in sporting and competition - because of most conservation regulations, it can't be used hunting. And because many find the price attractive, it's their round of choice for practice. Since the contractor has millions of rounds to dispose of that are not being accepted by the .Gov, it has to be moved out - or the government eat the cost. That seemed to escape some policy wonk's attention in DC and the results were not good as it wasn't well thought out.

There's a different perspective on it, too. The ATF may well have pushed it because they knew it would fail and to check the Executive office from it's fantasy agenda. Maybe we will read about that in some memoirs in the next twenty years.