Judging A Book By Its Cover
[guest post by Dana]
Radio host and political commentator Dana Loesch has a new book coming out. This is the cover of the book.
Crooks and Liars and others are flipping out. Their accusation:
[S]he decided to pose on the cover with an AR-15, a weapon that helped massacre so many innocent children in Sandy Hook.
It’s all about the HATE:
As conservative talkers ratchet up the anger against the left, their rubes continually are then blinded by more rage and the end result is that they constantly vote against their own interests just to as Beck says, “drive liberals crazy.” Unfortunately, it’s the parents of Sandy Hook that will ultimately pay the price for their failed attempts at right wing whimsy.
Loesch’s provocative cover has also elicited a number of ugly tweets.
Of the book and its cover, Loesch explains:
“Gun control is the ultimate war on women. Firearms are the equalizer between the sexes. Sam Colt made us equal, indeed. This book explores that, the racist roots of gun control, and debunks the biggest arguments made by anti-gun extremists. The AR is on the cover because it is the most vilified, misunderstood rifle in America, responsible for the fewest crimes. Education is the antidote to ignorance. Consider this book the medicine.”
Maybe a less controversial cover would sell more books, maybe this cover will sell even more books, who knows. I suspect Loesch fans and 2nd Amendment supporters will read the book, no matter what is on the cover. However, if Loesch had hopes that non-supporters might dig in and consider her arguments and defense, I don’t think she’s helped her cause. It’s true that the cover is just an excuse for the left and they would no doubt condemn her even if she had been cuddling an adorable little puppy and there had been no weapon in the picture, but was it a smart choice? And that’s why I am curious about her (and her editor’s) motive: Was it a deliberate design of sensationalism to “drive liberals crazy”? Or was it designed to make a serious statement (think something like: I am not afraid of this because I own it – it does not own me)? Likely, for the most part, one’s politics will inform the reaction to it. But I also believe that does not necessarily exclude weariness from mass shootings, unnecessary deaths and the madness of it all from informing that reaction as well.
–Dana
What AR-15???
EC (dda60e) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:37 amI note that Rosie Greer was a lifelong advocate of gun control. At 350 pounds of raw muscle, you’d kind of expect that.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:38 amShe is obviously insecure in her masculinity and compensating for the size of her penis.
nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:41 amPerhaps that wasn’t her cause.
Because…
…you can’t deal rationally with such people. They see the AR as some sort of talisman. Yes, somebody did great harm at Sandy Hook. But then many people have saved their lives with an M-16/AR-15 in the military, and as civilians. But then the anti-gun folks aren’t into honest accounting.
Perhaps her cause was to sell her books to people inclined to agree with her already, and to provide them with arguments so they can make the case to people who would never listen to Dana Loesch.
Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:43 amUm, what did I just say elsewhere about connecting the selling of just about anything to
scantily cladattractive women…Though at least in this case there is a point to it.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:44 amWHoa! That gun looks fully semi-automatic! It must be dangerous!
DejectedHead (06f486) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:46 amTrigger alert!
Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:55 amIt’s good that she conspicuously does not have her finger on the trigger.
I think it’s a provocative cover generates publicity generates sales generates profits meme invocation. Definitely generating publicity — far more than could be purchased, and in places it could not be purchased.
Very few minds will be changed.
htom (412a17) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:00 amSpeaking of judging a book based on its cover, it’s interesting how a fairly large number of well-known conservative women are quite good looking, while some of the most famous female political activists of the left are just the opposite. Perhaps that’s purely coincidental, and, yep, there are exceptions to the rule, but, when it comes to this matter, the inner ugliness (and phoniness) of liberalism may be reflected from both within and without.
Mark (c58c23) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:05 amOne of the reasons I am so conservative is because I got tired of people telling me (in print, on television, and in person) “Those people are crazy!” and when I would ask specifically why they would say things everybody knew was crazy, the answer would be “They’re just crazy! That’s IT!” That’s when I realized that often it was just a case of those people saying “Anyone who doesn’t believe what I believe is crazy, and if you disagree with me, YOU ARE TOO!”
I have no problem with this, because I have had my fill of moderating the unvarnished truth because of the expectation that there are just too many dummies who won’t think about what you say in plain English. You see the difference between the eponymous Crooks & Liars site, with its implication that Loesch was “whimsical” in traumatizing “Sandy Hook” parents (not all of whom are anti-gun activists), and Loesch’s stated intent in posing with an AR-15. Loesch’s purpose was to get them (and us) to ask “How dare she?” and the answer is clear as a bell.
Would that have happened if she posed barefoot and flashing a peace sign?
L.N. Smithee (7d4e89) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:25 amThe perpetually aggrieved would have complained about any gun. If she held a hand gun, they would have said she had no compassion for those killed in Santa Barbara.
I wouldn’t say she was scantily clad as the dress is actually quite modest, but it is tight fitting.
Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:33 amI forget that it’s mostly guys who comment here. Heh, so much for the thrust of the post itself…
Dana (3b3a72) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:34 amafter that ‘jumping the gun’ re Bundy, where she shot herself in the foot, I’m a little less impressed with her, but she usually is on target ‘Crooks and Liars’ rarely does a site so fittingly
narciso (3fec35) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:44 amdescribe themselves
It’s the contents of the book that matter. If the message inside the book is as well done as most of Ms Loesch’s commentaries usually are, then I think the provocative cover is actually a grand way to possibly attract more readers. There will certainly be some who buy or borrow this book specifically expecting and hoping for craziness (as referred to by L.N. Smitee) that they’ll beable to h8t, and cluck-cluck over, and dismiss on their blogs, and discuss at their book groups. If some of those people do actually read it, however, perhaps a few may come to the conclusion that the “war on women” has many sides to at least consider. I think Dana’ll get many media interviews about this book and I think/hope she’ll be prepared.
elissa (b69310) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:50 amHere you go, Dana. https://imgur.com/gallery/Ra4YQXK Not very NSFW in most places.
nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:53 am==so much for the thrust of the post itself…==
There you go with the double entendres, Dana, you sly girl! 🙂
elissa (b69310) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:03 amA blonde woman walks into a bank in NYC before going on vacation and asks for a $5,000 loan. The banker asks, “Okay, miss, is there anything you would like to use as collateral?” The woman says “Yes, of course. I’ll use my Rolls Royce.” The banker, stunned, asks “A $250,000 Rolls Royce? Really?” The woman is completely positive. She hands over the keys, as the bankers and loan officers laugh at her. They check her credentials, make sure she is the title owner. Everything checks out. They park it in their underground garage for two weeks. When she comes back, she pays off the $5,000 loan as well as the $15.41 interest. The loan officer says “Miss, we are very appreciative of your business with us, but I have one question. We looked you up and found out that you are a multi-millionaire. Why would you want to borrow $5,000?” The woman replies “Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $15.41 and expect it to be there when I return?”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:05 amKeep the gun and the dress, lose the ugly shoes.
ropelight (d955e5) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:18 amTanny O’Haley (c0a74e) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:33 am
Yes, she is definitely not “scantily clad”, which is why I crossed that part out (which had been in a comment of mine elsewhere.
And yes, it is the content of the book that counts, and the content of the book has to do with women being able to protect themselves with guns (I guess that is what it is about, at least in part).
But in line with what I said elsewhere, the cover of the book is not of a mom with no make-up wearing rumpled clothes feeding 2 kids lunch with peanut butter smeared everywhere with a prowler outside and a locked gun cabinet in view.
I’m sorry if my post was a distraction, but it was funny to me that somewhat of an example of what I said elsewhere unexpectedly appeared.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:25 amDana, will the poster be available on Amazon?
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:29 amCan we get signed copies?
Oh, “our” Dana wants to know what shoes you’re wearing?
DejectedHead (06f486) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:46 am
And it has an evil 30-rd magazine.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:30 amMD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:25 am
Well the cover does follow rule 5. 🙂
Tanny O'Haley (c0a74e) — 6/13/2014 @ 8:38 amRule-5 works for me.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/13/2014 @ 9:03 amThe most important of gun handling is to learn not to be afraid of them and how to let off a shot without wincing and closing your eyes. You don’t need to be Hopalong Cassidy. Just learn enough so you’re not dangerous to yourself and your friends but dangerous to snakes, the legless and two-legged kind. But you don’t learn that from a book. The book might get some people to go to a range and talk to someone there, maybe rent a gun and some instruction and see for themselves. That’s good enough.
nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2014 @ 9:31 amTo repeat something I read elsewhere:
Gun control is a cult. The way you know it’s a cult is because the cult leaders own guns themselves.
They don’t practice what they preach for others.
They don’t drink their own Kool-Aid. They know it’s poison.
So all the reasons they might have are lies and a moment’s common sense is enough to put them to rest.
But the game of a cult is to never give you that moment of common sense. It’s to use things which are mostly true but not really to get you to believe things are less and less true until you’re believing in things that are entirely insane. While at the same time keeping your emotions whipped up to distract you.
I am happy this book will preach to the choir. Might even pick it up myself. 🙂
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/13/2014 @ 9:34 amThe book i read this summer is called “Hands Off My Gun” by Dana Loesch. It was a very good book. The main message of this book is how people have the right to own guns even if it makes Barack Obama mad. She tells how guns can be very useful and I agree. One time these people broked into our house and stole all mom’s food stamps! Mom didn’t have a gun then but after I told her about this book she’s definitely maybe going to get one maybe. All in all this book is one I would recommend to everyone to read and people will be safer.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/13/2014 @ 9:38 amYou can barely make out the gun. It is about the same color as the background. Only someone very familiar with weapons will know what kind of a firearm it is. My eye was not attarcted to the gun anyway. The exact amount and location skin covered and uncovered was probably carefully planned by the publisher. It is clearly a ridiculous posed picture, almost a cartoon, which undermines its credibility somewhat, right off the bat.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:04 amSammy, you need a better monitor. The weapon is a copy of the current U.S. military issue rifle. It’s the most common rifle in the United States among police and civilians. It’s an Armalite design in .223 Remington (or 5.56 NATO if you want to start an argument), often called an AR-15, and only New Yorkers, CNN, and MSNBC would have trouble recognizing it.
nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:17 amA not-exact copy of the military rifle, the chief difference it is only semi-automatic and not selective fire.
nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:20 amAnd, it is not necessarily in cal .223Remington.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:42 amnk @28: Sammy, you need a better monitor.
Oh, I can make it out, but it is almost the same color as the background. I thgink tghe background color was deliberately chosen so as to fade in.
The weapon is a copy of the current U.S. military issue rifle. It’s the most common rifle in the United States among police and civilians. It’s an Armalite design in .223 Remington (or 5.56 NATO if you want to start an argument), often called an AR-15, and only New Yorkers, CNN, and MSNBC would have trouble recognizing it.
I wouldn’t have any idea what that thing is, except that it’s big, and half as tall as she is. It probably would be easier to carry around a fishing pole.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:44 amWell, this is the Age of Narcissism, and Dana wanted to make sure you were looking at her.
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:47 amI am content to allow the free market pass judgement on her book rather allow a shallow thing like cover art and a title tell me how it will be received. I believe all of Ann Coulter’s books have been best sellers carrying provocative titles and Ann wearing a cocktail dress or something similar. Liberals freely deride Coulter without reading a thing she has written or hearing a thing she has said. I’m sure the same will be true about Loesch. You can’t persuade the unpersuadable I think I have heard somebody here say before.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:50 amThe cover makes sense because an AR-15 is an excellent firearm for a woman. Unlike its wood stock cousins, an AR-15 can be adjusted to fit us perfectly; and the recoil is easily tolerated even for those of us with thin old shoulders.
AZ_Langer (f08ff6) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:51 amexcept that it’s big, and half as tall as she is.
Nope. It’s maybe eighteen inches from where the bullets come out to the pinky of her left hand. Say three feet overall if that. She’s not a tall girl.
It was issued as the M-16 when I was in ROTC. To get recruits not to be afraid of the recoil right off, drill instructors would shoot it with the butt resting against their nose. It’s a very good self-defense weapon for a woman and she’ll have 29 more shots if she misses with the first one.
nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:56 am“half as tall as she is”
The stock is adjustable, Sammy. She can size it to her comfort.
That part is in shadow, though, and hidden behind her wrist.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:56 amWell, ok, three feet would be more than half as tall as she is. 😉 But it’s not very long as rifles go.
nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2014 @ 10:58 amThat gun is so dangerous, you can mow a whole lawn with it. We’re not talking about a typical “pow pow” type gun. It is SEMI-AUTOMATIC. That’s what makes it controversial.
I learned this insight from the View the other day.
DejectedHead (a094a6) — 6/13/2014 @ 11:00 amWhat Sammy doesn’t know about firearms would fill the Encyclopedia Britannica (if it still existed).
askeptic (8ecc78) — 6/13/2014 @ 11:17 amTwo of my favorite things in life
mg (31009b) — 6/13/2014 @ 11:27 amWomen and Guns.
Leave it to Sammeh.
elissa (b69310) — 6/13/2014 @ 11:30 ambe careful sammy
Colonel Haiku (c0295c) — 6/13/2014 @ 11:37 amshe got one in the chamber
with teh safety OFF
There’s a gun on the cover?
Mark Johnson (9d93c4) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:14 pmSammy, you mean that’s not a candid shot of Dana walking around one day? Thanks for pointing this out! Dastardly to pose artistically for a book cover with a gun and a woman in a book about guns and women’s rights. It’s almost like people use art for symbolism and messaging, which I agree is a shameful thing that instantly ruins credibility because… ya know… just because cray cray.
Dustin (7f67e8) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:34 pmHeh, Dustin. I think red’s a very good color for her, too, don’t you? Prolly just a lucky something she grabbed out of her closet that day.
elissa (b69310) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:40 pmCurves like hers are beautiful.
mg (31009b) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:46 pmSammy,
Have you never seen a movie poster ?
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:46 pm47. Movie poster.
Not for a long time.
But the point is, you expect a non-fiction book’s cover to be more true to facts if it wants to be taken seriously.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:54 pmAfter quickly taking in the superb comliness of Ms. Loesch (being a normal heterosexual male that took all of .0025 seconds) I didn’t make the connection of, “Oh, my goodness, an AR-15. That’s the horrible gun that caused all the anguish to those parents at Sandy Hook.” But, then again, I go shooting all the time and spend a lot of time around guns, so I don’t wet my pants when I see one.
Funeral Guy (afbf7b) — 6/13/2014 @ 12:58 pmI would bet that the kooks writing at Crooks and Liars have never publicly campaigned against the gratuitous violence in Quentin Tarantino’s films.
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 6/13/2014 @ 1:06 pmSammy- we who read the posts and comment here live in different areas of the country, have different interests, personalities, and are of varying ages. All of this gives us different perspectives on people, politics, art, literature, sports, travel preferences, what clothes we like, what we eat, and how we spend money on ourselves and our families. You have stated that you do not find the book cover choice compelling or appropriate for a variety of reasons. I respect that you (and probably others) feel that way and I certainly do not question it. What I think people are trying to say here, though, is that not everyone sees the book or the cover picture in the same way you do. It doesn’t mean anybody here’s more right or more wrong. We just see things differently. Very often book publishers use more than one kind of cover art for the same book depending on where it’s going to be sold. It’s entirely possible that will happen after the initial marketing hype and book tour is finished.
elissa (b69310) — 6/13/2014 @ 1:28 pmSammy,
I heard that Dana Loesch wanted to entitle the book Hard Choices, but that she was informed that another sexy woman in a red dress was going to be releasing a politically-themed book at the same time with that very title, so this book cover and title are really just Plan B.
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 6/13/2014 @ 1:33 pmOr something.
It would be impossible to make up Sammah.
JD (a101d6) — 6/13/2014 @ 1:36 pmWow, Holland is absolutely destroying Spain in their opening match of the World Cup.
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 6/13/2014 @ 1:44 pmIt’s definitely a working look for her!
Dustin (7f67e8) — 6/13/2014 @ 2:05 pmelissa (b69310) — 6/13/2014 @ 1:28 pm
You have stated that you do not find the book cover choice compelling or appropriate for a variety of reasons. I respect that you (and probably others) feel that way and I certainly do not question it. What I think people are trying to say here, though, is that not everyone sees the book or the cover picture in the same way you do. It doesn’t mean anybody here’s more right or more wrong. We just see things differently. Very often book publishers use more than one kind of cover art for the same book depending on where it’s going to be sold. It’s entirely possible that will happen after the initial marketing hype and book tour is finished.
The title actually throws me off more than the cover.
Now if I had the book in hand, I’d look inside a bit. Or online, look at some reviews. And from that I would get the quality of the argument. It is very often the case that the title can be hyperbole.
What the picture on the cover doesm is that it add to its credibility. The whole thing screams: Hyperbole! And farce.
And you know in the real world, nobody’s close to taking many guns away.
Of course if you don’ like guns all that much, this title doesn’t appeal to you anyway.
Now here’s Wedsnesday and Thursday’s New York Daily News front pages:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/the-week?pdate=20140611
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/the-week?pdate=20140612
Just so you see what’s going on.
Now I think that’s a little bit too strong. And what are you blaming thhe NRA anyway/
There was one guy that used a kitchen knife to kill a child, severely wound another, probably kill a third person, an 18-year old woman and severely injure a homeless person. All in the first 9 days he got of jail. There should be a place here to go into the ramifucations of all of that.
I do say that the person who can most tell if someone is dangerous …is a detective. You can find that out based on evidence, not with talking to him.
The guy with the knife had learned to control his behavior – somewhat. He was actually stopped by police for unrinating on a public street, and said hhe didn’ty know it was against the law, ahande over ID and got a ticket. This was on the mornng that he got arrested, a week ago Wednesday or maybe it was Tuesday.
He also knew that if he kept the knife the murder could be traced to him. I assume that’s why he discared a knife – twice.
What he didn’t know, was that he left DNA on the knife, and he was in the databse, so if they put a rush on it they could identify him after several days, and that’s his personal location could be tracked through his cellphone.
I
Sammy Finkelman (324ec1) — 6/13/2014 @ 2:08 pm==Now if I had the book in hand, I’d look inside a bit. Or online, look at some reviews. And from that I would get the quality of the argument. It is very often the case that the title can be hyperbole. What the picture on the cover doesm is that it add to its credibility. The whole thing screams: Hyperbole! And farce.==
OK. Well, let us know when you’ve read the book and are ready to write the book report, Sammy. Sometimes I think you kind of take things too literally. I really do.
BTW, How far are you into the Dust Bowl book, Sammy? Are you making good headway?
elissa (b69310) — 6/13/2014 @ 2:15 pmDoes the cover come in brail?
mg (31009b) — 6/13/2014 @ 2:18 pmbraille
mg (31009b) — 6/13/2014 @ 2:19 pmSammy, Sammy, Sammy…
The publisher usually has big influence over the marketing of a book, including the title, cover, graphics, et al.
A proven money-generator like an Ann Coulter may have earned ‘veto’ power or even be permitted to influence the title, cover, graphics, etc.
But since the publisher is actually putting forth the capital to publish the thing, they have an incentive to use a little hyperbole on the book cover.
You know, so people will discuss it—as we’re doing right here.
I bet Dana Loesch is sending a note of thanks to the liars and crooks at Crooks and Liars, for generating discussion about her new book.
Elephant Stone (5c2aa0) — 6/13/2014 @ 2:37 pmHey, GD it… I’m missing three cans of candy apple red spray paint
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/13/2014 @ 3:26 pmThe rifle Loesch is holding has been around in various configurations for nearly 60 years now, and it’s well past time idiot leftists did their homework and learned a few of the obvious basics about modern rifles before they display their witting ignorance and made even bigger fools of themselves than usual. If that’s possible.
ropelight (d955e5) — 6/13/2014 @ 3:51 pmI’m not trying to start an argument; in fact there are bogus old wives tales about how you should NEVER fire 5.56 NATO ammo in a .223 Rem chamber or you could blow up your gun. It’s not true and has never happened as far as I know. But it can potentially cause the rifle to malfunction. While the cartridge dimensions are mostly the same the chamber dimensions are different. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) establishes industry standards for commurcial chamber and cartridge specifications and pressures. The military uses its own standards for both. You can chamber either round in either rifle, although the military cartridges are almost always loaded to higher pressures. Also the leade, essentially the distance the bullet has to travel when it leaves the cartridge case until it engages the rifling, is shorter in rifles chambered to SAAMI specs than those chambered to military specs. The SAAMI spec provides slightly greater accuracy. But what it also means is in some instances when a military surplus 5.56 round (particulary foreign surplus) is chambered in a .223 Rem rifle the bullet may already be touching the rifling. This creates even higher chamber pressures because the bullet has to overcome that initial resistance to leave the case when normally it would get a “running start.”
It’s usually not a big deal. Nobody has ever had a rifle blow up because the fired a 5.56 NATO round in a .223 Rem chambered rifle. But sometimes the higher pressure will cause the primer to pop out, and if gets into the trigger group your rifle can stop functioning. Which is just a minor annoyance at the range or hunting (legal in Texas). But if you use your AR for defensive purposes a rifle malfunction at the wrong time could get you killed.
One thing to keep in mind is that most commercially available ARs may be stamped 5.56 on the barrel, but they’re chambered to SAAMI specifications.
Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/13/2014 @ 5:48 pmBe that as it may, it’s not really accurate to call a .223 a 5.56, because they are different specifications.
Anyway, the basic rifle is one the USA has used, many many police use, and is in widespread use in this country. Dana is correct that it’s relatively unusual for a crime to be committed with one, compared to other weapons. It’s also probably one of the best weapons you could want for protection, yet actually impractical for most crimes. I really like the use of this specific rifle for the argument Dana L is making because it’s also a weapon that is highly demonized.
Personally, I really don’t mind a background check for obtaining a gun, but I think the best compromise for this should be to make it easier to get a suppressor (specifically because of its utility in home defense, because otherwise you will injure your hearing). I never hear about this form of compromise from gun control advocates. It’s always a situation where one side gives and the other side takes, and then resetting the battle lines to push again. Which reeks of bad faith.
Dustin (7f67e8) — 6/13/2014 @ 5:56 pmMy uncles loaded captured Italian Carcano ammunition in their Schoenauers. 6.5 is 6.5, isn’t it? 😉 Of course they had good Austrian steel bolt actions instead of aluminum and plastic Mattel toys …. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:08 pmhttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/13/dana-loesch-deluged-with-hate-mail-after-revealing-the-cover-of-her-new-book-the-left-wont-like-her-response/
narciso (3fec35) — 6/13/2014 @ 6:16 pmWell, yes. I never said they’re the same. There are differences but I think I explained them. Primarily it’s the dimensions of the chamber.
The physical dimensions of the cartridges are so close, and given the acceptable range of tolerances, they overlap to the point that the exterior measurements are for all intents and purposes the same. But the 5.56 NATO milspec ammo is loaded to higher pressures. That’s the chief difference between the two cartridges; the SAAMI pressure specification is lower.
I probably should mention that the 5.56 NATO brass has thicker walls to deal with the higher pressures, which means less interior volume. Which would be a concern if you’re reloading as the smaller interior space would create still higher pressures. Although you really should only use the components specified in the manual some people will substitute components. I imagine it would be dangerous to assume certain reloading data would be safe in military brass.
A rifle actually chambered (not merely marked) to 5.56 NATO specifications can safely fire either cartridge in absolute safety. Going the other way the safest course of action is to only fire .223 Rem ammon in a rifle chambered to SAAMI specifications.
But over the years at least a few gunwriters have contacted gunmakers to check out the allegation that it’s dangerous to fire 5.56 NATO ammo in rifles chambered to the SAAMI spec and the manufacturers say it’s not a big deal. Armalite says millions of rounds of milsurp ammo have been fired in their commercial ARs and they’ve never had a catastrophic failure.
But the differences between 5.56 and .223 ammo and chambers are enough that the milsurp ammo can cause malfunctions in commercial rifles.
Steve57 (5f0260) — 6/13/2014 @ 7:06 pmLet me immediately learn the rss after i are not able to in finding your current e mail monthly subscription link as well as e-newsletter services. Perform you have any kind of? Make sure you permit my family find out to ensure I possibly could join. Many thanks.
military surplus (46e90e) — 6/24/2014 @ 12:05 am