SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    NGSW
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
NGSW Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Mortars. Grenade launchers. Air support. Artillery.

Well, I guess we can just go ahead and discontinue the infantry then. Commanders in a "near peer" conflict won't even bother wasting artillery and air assets on those silly infantrymen that pose no threat. I was always under the impression that boots on the ground is the bottom line. We're all tracking that infantry isn't charging out of trenches at each other as a whistle-blowing, pistol toting officer leads the way. I reckon proper warfare is about killing combatants; the king of battle (artillery) needs to specifically target combatants. So maybe the queen of battle (infantry) needs to be the eyes of the artillery; in being those eyes, they're likely to encounter the enemy artillery's eyes; small arms conflict inevitably results. I am not a learned military tactician, but to imply that small arms development is needless is to imply that small arms users are useless on the battlefield. There's no talk of deactivating infantry units, with the advent of a renewed near-peer threat.

Also, I think this program is undoubtedly informed by the GWOT, which, as others have pointed out, doesn't necessarily represent the best motivation for small arms design, when those arms will end up serving in a more conventional warfare setting.

Just like I am not military tactician: I am no weapons engineer. It seems to me that elevated chamber pressures ought not be anything to fret about, when they're occurring in a weapon that was designed for them.
 
Posts: 901 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigless in
Indiana
Picture of IndianaBoy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM:
quote:
Mortars. Grenade launchers. Air support. Artillery.

Well, I guess we can just go ahead and discontinue the infantry then. Commanders in a "near peer" conflict won't even bother wasting artillery and air assets on those silly infantrymen that pose no threat. I was always under the impression that boots on the ground is the bottom line. We're all tracking that infantry isn't charging out of trenches at each other as a whistle-blowing, pistol toting officer leads the way. I reckon proper warfare is about killing combatants; the king of battle (artillery) needs to specifically target combatants. So maybe the queen of battle (infantry) needs to be the eyes of the artillery; in being those eyes, they're likely to encounter the enemy artillery's eyes; small arms conflict inevitably results. I am not a learned military tactician, but to imply that small arms development is needless is to imply that small arms users are useless on the battlefield. There's no talk of deactivating infantry units, with the advent of a renewed near-peer threat.

Also, I think this program is undoubtedly informed by the GWOT, which, as others have pointed out, doesn't necessarily represent the best motivation for small arms design, when those arms will end up serving in a more conventional warfare setting.

Just like I am not military tactician: I am no weapons engineer. It seems to me that elevated chamber pressures ought not be anything to fret about, when they're occurring in a weapon that was designed for them.



1.) Kindly point out where I said anything of the kind.


2.) You can design a car to run on nitromethane. That doesn't mean you are going to be able to drive it for 8 hours a day. Me pointing out that this is likely going to dramatically reduce the service life of the firearms is not a controversial statement, if you understand anything about how barrels and bolts eventually fail. Maybe they will line every barrel with stellite. That would increase the service life. It would also detrimentally affect accuracy and they are billing this cartridge as extending the effective range of the platform.



Me pointing out that I expect to see teething problems does not mean I am opposed to innovation.



40mm HE solves a lot of problems that a new whiz bang rifle round may or may not.......
 
Posts: 13780 | Location: The Edge of the Ozarks | Registered: December 04, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The first bolded portion you mentioned wasn't drawing from something you specifically said; more of a evolution of my own train of thought, based on remarks I have seen other folks make, regarding the NGSW program.

My knowledge of pressures, among other scientific aspects of small arms design, and their myriad effects on small arms function and lifespan is limited. I just assume that a small arms engineer knows what the heck he's doing, especially when he's not constrained by parameters that necessitate cramming something into an existing design.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for grenades and other munitions. I think 40mm projectiles are poorly utilized and undertrained in most infantry units at present.
 
Posts: 901 | Location: Northeast GA | Registered: February 15, 2021Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Loswsmith
posted Hide Post
The evolution of round and body armor is going to be a constant battle that will be solved lots of different ways. And it's clear that getting NATO to sign off on a new general purpose cartridge is going to be . . . difficult as well, especially one that is as untested as this one. Also, this appears not to be a replacement of the 5.56, but a supplemental.

The Forgotten Weapons episodes are rife with examples of firearms and weapon systems that were the "new hotness" which ultimately failed in the long term.

My son is 11 now and wants to join the Marines in the worst way. I wouldn't bet one gets me five that he would be issued this cartridge in his rifle when he's ready to enlist. However, the writing is on the wall that the 5.56 days are numbered, but whether that number is in years numbering than that which can be counted on two hands is very doubtful, expecially with this weapon system's cartridge requiring everything new really. I'd place good money bets that the 5.56 beats the .45 ACP in terms of "length of service" in an primarily issued infantry weapon (and I'm aware that the .45 wasn't a mainly issued infantry weapon because pistols weren't given to enlisted infantry generally but my gist is clear).


___________________________________________
Life Member NRA & Washington Arms Collectors

Mistake not my current state of joshing gentle peevishness for the awesome and terrible majesty of the towering seas of ire that are themselves the milquetoast shallows fringing my vast oceans of wrath.
 
Posts: 1449 | Location: T-town in the 253 | Registered: January 16, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigless in
Indiana
Picture of IndianaBoy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM:
The first bolded portion you mentioned wasn't drawing from something you specifically said; more of a evolution of my own train of thought, based on remarks I have seen other folks make, regarding the NGSW program.

My knowledge of pressures, among other scientific aspects of small arms design, and their myriad effects on small arms function and lifespan is limited. I just assume that a small arms engineer knows what the heck he's doing, especially when he's not constrained by parameters that necessitate cramming something into an existing design.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for grenades and other munitions. I think 40mm projectiles are poorly utilized and undertrained in most infantry units at present.


Amen brother!
 
Posts: 13780 | Location: The Edge of the Ozarks | Registered: December 04, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 11 | Location: KY | Registered: May 02, 2019Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ok, My take away from reading this thread is

1. that my awesome AR-15 platform 6.8 SPC stays a 6.8 SPC.

2. My AR-10 eventually is re-barrelled to this new round since I can.

For folks who have shot this 277 Fury, do you think it would work well in a 16 or 18" AR-10 platform ?

Thanks John

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JohnO,
 
Posts: 286 | Location: Massachusetts | Registered: September 18, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JohnO:
Ok, My take away from reading this thread is....

1. The first 6.8 press releases made it sound as if there would be new 6.8 cartridge for both the AR15 and the AR10 platforms. The recent statements are all directed at an AR10-sized cartridge. It doesn't appear that there is any NGSW interest in the AR15 or any of its current cartridges.

2. The 277 Fury has similar dimensions to the 308 Win, and thus an AR10 can be chambered in 277 Fury. A competent gunsmith can easily rechamber an AR10.

As noted in previous posts, the civilian version of the 277 Fury will likely be introduced with similar chamber pressures as existing 308-ish cartridges -- like the 50k-60k-ish pressures of 7mm-08, 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Remy, 243 Win, 6 Creedmoor. Chamber pressures of 80k will likely cause some level of pressure issues in the gas and spring systems of existing AR10s. I suspect lawyers will ixnay side-by-side sales of ammo that could have either 50k or 80k chamber pressures -- too much chance of Joe Consumer's buying the box of high pressure ammo, when his gun is designed for standard pressure ammo.

Assuming Sig and other companies distribute civilian 277 Fury ammo, expect its ballistics to be a split between 6.5 Creedmoor and 7mm-08. Maybe a 140-ish grain bullet with a MV near 2800 fps. This should work just fine in a 16-18 barrel AR10, however higher MV and improved ballistics will occur with longer barrels.
 
Posts: 7276 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Web Clavin Extraordinaire
Picture of Oat_Action_Man
posted Hide Post
^^^ Your guesstimate is pretty much spot on.

The 277 load that SIG currently sells is the downloaded version. A 135 gr advertised at 2750 fps from a 16" barrel and 3000 fps from a 24" barrel.


----------------------------

Chuck Norris put the laughter in "manslaughter"

Educating the youth of America, one declension at a time.
 
Posts: 19605 | Location: SE PA | Registered: January 12, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
You have cow?
I lift cow!
posted Hide Post
A lot of videos dropped in the last few days on this. Hearing some interesting stats. The Brownells guy said,

Flatter shooting round out to 1000 yards from a 13 inch barrel than 6.5 Creedmore?


On Mac's video it was said the Army committed to buying 250K units of the optic???

This seems like more of a specialty item than having those big of numbers. Especially money wise.



------------------------------
http://defendersoffreedom.us/
 
Posts: 6434 | Location: Bay Area | Registered: December 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
You have cow?
I lift cow!
posted Hide Post
Saw and 240 replacement here, supposedly. This thing looks pretty slick.





------------------------------
http://defendersoffreedom.us/
 
Posts: 6434 | Location: Bay Area | Registered: December 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
I won’t begin to predict how a company like SIG might decide to sell its ammunition, but I will point out that if they sold 277 Fury ammo on the open market with warnings to use it only in its rifles, it would hardly be the first time that two varieties of ammunition were sold, and only some of it was considered safe to use in certain firearms. Although there are no doubt other examples, 38 S&W Special, 9mm Luger, 257 Roberts, and 45-70 Government are all offered in higher pressure loadings than the original guns were designed to handle.




“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
— Plato
 
Posts: 45450 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
while the MCX platform may be a pretty decent "upgrade" worth/not worth the money to our military...I don't get the round...
1) defeat body armor at longer ranges
2) heavier round flying faster.
3) nailed it
got it. but...
1) less rounds per lb to carry per soldier
2) higher recoil (especially if your sub 150lbs)
3) possibly lower marksmanship scores for all
4) if you have less ammo..and dont hit as often...not sure how armored your opponent is will matter.

seems like the issue in Afghanistan with engagements between mountain tops...has gotten out of hand.

whats wrong with a DMR upgrade?
vs just handing everyone a bigger heavier gun with less ammo to be potentially less accurate with?

The reasoning behind the m16/m4 seem to be the opposite of these new guns/caliber.

if our next big wars are in jungles/heavy foliage... I guess we can always grab the M4's from storage.
 
Posts: 740 | Location: FL | Registered: November 17, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Raised Hands Surround Us
Three Nails To Protect Us
Picture of Black92LX
posted Hide Post
quote:
2) higher recoil (especially if your sub 150lbs)


According to the video with the Spears super secret squirrel recoil mitigation system recoil is the same as the M4.
He shoots the rifle one handed with his thumb not even wrapped around the grip.
Says recoil is very minimal.


————————————————
I think that when those dark voices start calling our name in the back of our head we need to remind those voices who we belong to!
Andrew Schwab - Project 86
 
Posts: 23494 | Registered: September 06, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Slippery Pete:
The Brownells guy said,
Flatter shooting round out to 1000 yards from a 13 inch barrel than 6.5 Creedmore?

Time will tell. But 80k chamber pressure makes comparisons challenging at this time, as the vast majority of us have no experience with such a hot cartridge.

One must always consider "statistics" when no data is provided as backup. What bullets are being used -- 6.8 vs "Creedmoor". All ballistics from a 13" barrel? Or maybe other barrel lengths, too? Who the hell plans to shoot out to 1,000 yards with a 13" barrel? Regardless of cartridge, drift and drop won't be good at 1,000 yards. What about the ballistics data at more reasonable ranges? And if the stats show that one drops 250 inches and the other drops only 249.5 inches, that's not a realistic advantage in the field.

Many moons ago on another website, I jumped into discussions on 300 Blackout -- the latest wonder cartridge at the time. AAC folks touted how they brought this amazing cartridge to the AR15 world, pretty much from their own work. Evidently, similar .30 cal cartridges that would fit into an AR15 were just not available..... 300blk was "designed" to be both subsonic and supersonic, low recoil, flat shooting, quiet as shit with a suppressor, and retain boat loads of downrange energy. It would make the 5.56 AR15 obsolete overnight, with the military jumping on the opportunity to swap chambers. The AAC rep didn't seem to care much for an unknown shooter's questions....

Like why did they compare the ballistics of a modern .30 cal 110 grain high-ish BC Barnes bullet in the 300blk to a 55 grain FMJ generic bullet in a fairly anemic load in 223? Why not the new 77 grain loads that the military was using? At least why not a 69 grain load? And why didn't the ballistics numbers match up to output from well-known ballistics programs such as JBM? Are you certain these are realistic MVs from the 300blk loads -- have they been verified by the average Joe Blow in the field?

Over time, I shot my own 300blk upper much more, and compared 223 Remy against 300blk. But I didn't have that data back then.

I think the new Sig rifle and the new 6.8 round have potential for many applications. Time will tell.
 
Posts: 7276 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Black92LX:

According to the video with the Spears super secret squirrel recoil mitigation system recoil is the same as the M4.
He shoots the rifle one handed with his thumb not even wrapped around the grip.
Says recoil is very minimal.


all the videos I watched. yeah the xm250 looks like it has some secret squirrels buried in there. the xm5 looks like its rocking some shoulders, and the burst fire looked worse. Couldn't tell it was more tame then a AR10.

Even some of those youtube operators looked a little uncomfortable on follow up shots..I cant imagine it being easier on the average infantry-"person". I guess time will tell.
 
Posts: 740 | Location: FL | Registered: November 17, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Web Clavin Extraordinaire
Picture of Oat_Action_Man
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by alteon180e:
quote:
Originally posted by Black92LX:

According to the video with the Spears super secret squirrel recoil mitigation system recoil is the same as the M4.
He shoots the rifle one handed with his thumb not even wrapped around the grip.
Says recoil is very minimal.


all the videos I watched. yeah the xm250 looks like it has some secret squirrels buried in there. the xm5 looks like its rocking some shoulders, and the burst fire looked worse. Couldn't tell it was more tame then a AR10.

Even some of those youtube operators looked a little uncomfortable on follow up shots..I cant imagine it being easier on the average infantry-"person". I guess time will tell.


A lot of the people who I've seen shooting them in videos have shit recoil management, weak stances and grips.

Then there are the GunTubers who make decisions and make videos about the gun based on watching other videos of people who don't shoot them well.

It's very circular.


----------------------------

Chuck Norris put the laughter in "manslaughter"

Educating the youth of America, one declension at a time.
 
Posts: 19605 | Location: SE PA | Registered: January 12, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    NGSW

© SIGforum 2022