Is this just for liability purposes, or do they do not truly stand by their product?
Also, I saw similar warnings for CMMG and Olympic Arms, not exactly top tier stuff. I could not find similar warnings for what we generally consider top tier ARs…closest I could find is Colt manuals recommend not using reloads. Any one else encounter “ammo warnings” for what they consider top quality firearms??
The no handloads is a standard warning with all gun manufactures.
The problem appears to be the bullet contour and the overall length of the cartridge, which is contacting the rifling before firing. This is creating a gas port pressure and chamber pressure higher than recommended, therefore causing feeding and extraction problems due to the increased bolt carrier velocity.
When I first handloaded I could not get the bullet to touch the bore of the barrel. And that was with an OAL way too long to fit in a magazine. Is the difference really that much between 5.56 and .223? Does anyone have anything to show the chamber difference between SAAMI and 5.56?
No, they all chamber for 5.56…nominally at least. But DPMS is a budget rifle and they have to save money somewhere. The usual sacrifices are quality control and warranty support.
I have no doubt that if my Noveske didn’t feed Wolf, I could send it back and Noveske would make it good, but that rifle costs almost 3x more than a DPMS. That extra money buys a lot of QC, design expertise, and customer support.
They don’t all chamber for 5.56 and the difference in the chamber pressure is significant. It’s why you can shoot .223 in a 5.56 gun, but not 5.56 in a .223 gun. If the gun says .223, do not shoot 5.56. There are also many more differences than QC and warranty work. DPMS uses 4140 for the barrel, utilizes batch testing, no M4 feedramps, and has 1/9 twist.
I may have it all wrong, but I think the “no reloads” policy is just a liability issue. Gun manufacturers know what ammo manufacturers QC standards are, but they have no idea of what somebody puts in their reloads.