OK, can a WAC receiver handle .223? Just.....

cowbilly · March 09, 2002, 17:07

Sent a kit to meeper with WAC receiver. I know that this has been discussed before but I could'nt find the info using the search engine. (might have leaped before looking on this one).

7.62 and 5.56 (.223 and .308) have comparable chamber pressures. One (local) gunsmith said (not meeper, haven't spoke with him yet) it is less pressure on the LS with .223 another highly touted one says .223 will bust a WAC just like the ones chambered in .308 (my words, but thats the jest of the other smith said).

So what's the verdict? Anyone have any good info on this? I already waisted my money with WAC (CC dispute still pending), don't want to throw more into it if it won't work.

Thanks in advance.

**W.E.G.** · March 09, 2002, 18:38

I'm not so sure that chamber pressure is analogous to total backthrust pressure.

Even if it doesn't last you can always install that meeper .223 kit on a real receiver.

sparky · March 09, 2002, 18:58

Heres a link.
http://www.falfiles.com/cgi-bin/foru...c&f=4&t=000206

cowbilly · March 09, 2002, 20:19

Thanks for the link Sparky.

Meeper gave me a call and answered
my questions. Thanks Meeper, I appreciated
that very much. So, I'm going to continue with the conversion.

In layman's terms, the .223 produces less thrust on the locking shoulder, bolt in a way absorbs more because of the smaller .223 base. Meeper gives a way more technical description. Just the fact that he called is enough to put him in the good guy column, so send him your kits.

So, in short the answer is what Mr. Jeter said above.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: cowbilly ]

sparky · March 09, 2002, 20:38

CB I will have my hands on mine real soon. I will give a range report in reviews.

cowbilly · March 09, 2002, 20:50

Yea, let us know. Did you get the AR mag push button model? Mine is scheduled for early April delivery.

Take care all.

sparky · March 09, 2002, 20:59

CB its a shorty gas system, short barrel with AR mag Adp. and a L.W. lower.

rwwje · March 09, 2002, 21:13

Its strictly a matter of the difference in the internal cross sectional area of .223 vs. 7.62. With equal chamber pressures, the force exerted on the bolt/lug/locking shoulder/receiver is directly proportional the internal cross sectional area of the cartridge. Reduce that area by 40%, and the rearward force exerted against the bolt is reduced by 40%. Your WAC receiver will have a much better chance with the .223 (compared to the 7.62) of sustaining/transferring the load applied to the locking shoulder without failure of the aluminum against which the locking shoulder is bearing.

The math will tell you if its safe and how much of a safety factor exists. I think (but don't know without the calcualtions) that the .223 conversions are safe.

Does someone need to fire a proof load? Yes, I think so. I really like the idea and the work that Meeper is doing, and I want to see these conversions become part of our hobby. I haven't kept up with this issue (don't know if proof testing has be reported), but I think proof testing is in order so that the success of this direction may be properly evaluated (and assured).

Again, I think (but don't know for certain) that aluminum's strength is sufficient for .223 with an adequate safety margin (this is were the WAC mistake of apparently not proof testing should be avoided). The only other potential issue that comes to my limited mind are aluminum's creep properties, which might possibly lead to increases in headspace over time in excess of those attributed to wear due or receiver "strechting". Until experience answers the creep question, headspace should probably be regularly monitored with use. I support and wish much success to those involved in this process, as I also hope to one day have an aluminum receivered (upper and lower) FAL in .223.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: rwwje ]

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: rwwje ]

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: rwwje ]

March 09, 2002, 17:07	#1
cowbilly Registered Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 2908 Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: MS, USA Posts: 1,006	OK, can a WAC receiver handle .223? Just..... Sent a kit to meeper with WAC receiver. I know that this has been discussed before but I could'nt find the info using the search engine. (might have leaped before looking on this one). 7.62 and 5.56 (.223 and .308) have comparable chamber pressures. One (local) gunsmith said (not meeper, haven't spoke with him yet) it is less pressure on the LS with .223 another highly touted one says .223 will bust a WAC just like the ones chambered in .308 (my words, but thats the jest of the other smith said). So what's the verdict? Anyone have any good info on this? I already waisted my money with WAC (CC dispute still pending), don't want to throw more into it if it won't work. Thanks in advance.

March 09, 2002, 18:38	#2
W.E.G. Administrator Silver Contributor FALaholic #: 1211 Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Virginia Posts: 31,108	I'm not so sure that chamber pressure is analogous to total backthrust pressure. Even if it doesn't last you can always install that meeper .223 kit on a real receiver. __________________ . . . Ask me about the Mason-Dixon FAL Collectors Association.

March 09, 2002, 21:13	#8
rwwje Registered Contributor FALaholic #: 2017 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 1,418	Its strictly a matter of the difference in the internal cross sectional area of .223 vs. 7.62. With equal chamber pressures, the force exerted on the bolt/lug/locking shoulder/receiver is directly proportional the internal cross sectional area of the cartridge. Reduce that area by 40%, and the rearward force exerted against the bolt is reduced by 40%. Your WAC receiver will have a much better chance with the .223 (compared to the 7.62) of sustaining/transferring the load applied to the locking shoulder without failure of the aluminum against which the locking shoulder is bearing. The math will tell you if its safe and how much of a safety factor exists. I think (but don't know without the calcualtions) that the .223 conversions are safe. Does someone need to fire a proof load? Yes, I think so. I really like the idea and the work that Meeper is doing, and I want to see these conversions become part of our hobby. I haven't kept up with this issue (don't know if proof testing has be reported), but I think proof testing is in order so that the success of this direction may be properly evaluated (and assured). Again, I think (but don't know for certain) that aluminum's strength is sufficient for .223 with an adequate safety margin (this is were the WAC mistake of apparently not proof testing should be avoided). The only other potential issue that comes to my limited mind are aluminum's creep properties, which might possibly lead to increases in headspace over time in excess of those attributed to wear due or receiver "strechting". Until experience answers the creep question, headspace should probably be regularly monitored with use. I support and wish much success to those involved in this process, as I also hope to one day have an aluminum receivered (upper and lower) FAL in .223. [ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: rwwje ] [ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: rwwje ] [ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: rwwje ] __________________ Conservatives believe that the people are sovereign, and that the government is subject to the will of the people. Liberals believe that the government is sovereign, and that the people are subject to the will of the government.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

March 09, 2002, 18:58	#3
sparky Registered FALaholic #: 2542 Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 1,626	Heres a link. http://www.falfiles.com/cgi-bin/foru...c&f=4&t=000206

March 09, 2002, 20:19	#4
cowbilly Registered Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 2908 Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: MS, USA Posts: 1,006	Thanks for the link Sparky. Meeper gave me a call and answered my questions. Thanks Meeper, I appreciated that very much. So, I'm going to continue with the conversion. In layman's terms, the .223 produces less thrust on the locking shoulder, bolt in a way absorbs more because of the smaller .223 base. Meeper gives a way more technical description. Just the fact that he called is enough to put him in the good guy column, so send him your kits. So, in short the answer is what Mr. Jeter said above. [ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: cowbilly ]

March 09, 2002, 20:38	#5
sparky Registered FALaholic #: 2542 Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 1,626	CB I will have my hands on mine real soon. I will give a range report in reviews.

March 09, 2002, 20:50	#6
cowbilly Registered Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 2908 Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: MS, USA Posts: 1,006	Yea, let us know. Did you get the AR mag push button model? Mine is scheduled for early April delivery. Take care all.

March 09, 2002, 20:59	#7
sparky Registered FALaholic #: 2542 Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 1,626	CB its a shorty gas system, short barrel with AR mag Adp. and a L.W. lower.