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.

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.......

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.

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).

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!

some more info on the selection:

https://twitter.com/DeptofDefe.../1516794155724328960

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,

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.

^^^ 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.

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.

Saw and 240 replacement here, supposedly. This thing looks pretty slick.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

From what I've been reading, I think the machine gun version is where most of the big wins are for this platform. You get to remove a caliber from the logistics train by dropping 7.62x51 and moving all your light MG's to the same caliber as the infantry rifles. Also, you get a man-portable MG that is about as manageable as the M249, but is a credible threat at longer ranges.

Considering our infantry doctrine generally boils down to "fix the enemy in place with fire superiority, then maneuver to destroy them or force a retreat", effective range on our MG's is real important to allowing troops to do what they are trained to do. Being a threat from a range where the enemy can't effectively respond is one common way to get fire superiority. Another is to be at a range where the enemy can respond effectively, but to throw more bullets down-range than the other guy can. Right now, the M249 is taking the 'more bullets' approach. The M250, or whatever they end up calling it, is taking the less bullets, but from a place where they enemy can't effectively shoot back approach. It is more complicated than that, but you get the general idea, and this is why the Army thinks carrying less ammo will be OK. They think they won't need to use as much ammo to get fire superiority with the new system compared to what they do with the M249 right now. I'm not saying it will work out that way, but they did consider the fact that each squad would be carrying less rounds, and this is why they are OK with it.

The rifle is just sort of along for the ride. It gets that same increased threat range as the MG's so it can still contribute to weight of fire, but the rest of the upgrades and changes are almost all things the Army looked at before and decided, "Not worth the effort." This program is really a light MG program meant to replace the M249 and M60. The Infantry rifle came along for the ride because of the logistical benefits of having all of these primary weapons using the same caliber, and the tactical issues that we would run into if the infantry rifles didn't have the range to support the light MGs. All the bells and whistles like the super-scope, the suppressor, and all that weren't worth doing on their own, but since it needed to be replaced with a new platform to use the new round, we might as well make those changes at the same time. At least, that seems to the the Army's logic. Keep in mind, this is all just my opinion, based on things I've read. I could certainly be wrong.

Also, I'm not prepared to guess at whether the Army's ideas about needing less rounds to get fire superiority will pan out or not. I will say that I worry about how the idea works in city fighting. I don't think you can rely on having the range to get fire superiority through anything but weight of fire in an urban area. It's just a worry though. I don't have any data to back it up.

- Bret

An excellent video about the weapon, including its technical details by Ian of Forgotten Weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTZRCEh1Czg

Having spent 8 years of my 20s in the military, one thing I learned is that we’re always applying the lessons from the last war we fought instead of anticipating the needs of the next. I get it, longer max effective range was needed in Afghanistan. So the best solution is a new round that’s hard to make, has super high pressure, and exactly zero of our allies are using? And where might the next war be fought? Back to an urban environment with 25-200m shots? Ukraine is lots of fighting in and around cities and with troops in contact in the field.

Wouldn’t it have been way easier on the whole roll out and supply chain to just go to a 7.62x51 gun? Are we getting billions worth of improved performance out of the Sig 277?