6.8x51mm or 277 fury new military ammo
- Thread starter Shadow9mm
- Start date
Of course, it "never happens" but it does happen, and has been happening for a long time.
Even when the official standards are the same, there are cases where the women get a "helping hand" until things get caught in a way that can't be swept under the rug.
I know this from personal experience back in the 70s and from my daughter's experience in 2002. I'm sure its still going on, here and there, today...
If you had proof, there would be all kinds of DS getting busted.
Do they help some trainees in creative ways? Yes, but they don't shoot their scores for them. And, testosterone aside, female quals on the M4 are pretty even with male quals. Now, in the ACFT, there is some jerrymandering of course.
But never let an opportunity to go off-topic and throw shade on things you don't like, go to waste.
Jim Watson
New member
Never mind the Army, I want to see the good old boys get some of that steel head ammo and light it up.
I really want them see if they can reload factory equivalent without that Super Duper Special Sauce powder everybody talks about in any factory load.
I really really want to see somebody put it in a long barrel.
I really want them see if they can reload factory equivalent without that Super Duper Special Sauce powder everybody talks about in any factory load.
I really really want to see somebody put it in a long barrel.
All that should come at some point. All the big Army comps are now over and they had guns and ammo on site to try, but they still shot all the comps with the old stuff. Having looking at the cases, I am still a little skeptical of the claim of 100 loadings out of the 277 Fury case that has been claimed by a few companies that make powder and bullets. But then, if those loads were only 55K or so, I can see it. I don't see it being hard to get to 80Kpsi, heck, I've done it in .223 for testing to failure. It is the durability of the bolts, throats and gas ports that might be the hard hurdles. Are Americans going to accept half the barrel life for an extra 200-250 fps? Well, yes, we have Magnumitis. But for me, I'll take the paltry 2750 and longer case life with a smile if it comes to that.
Cap'n Thread Veer here:
Caught a snippet from "Morning Joe" from a couple weeks ago where they were talking about gun control and they were having a case of the vapors that the military was developing a rifle even more powerful than an AR which would be even deadlier which, of course, means more gun control is needed more than ever.
I don't know whether it's better to ignore the ignorance or call them out on it.
Caught a snippet from "Morning Joe" from a couple weeks ago where they were talking about gun control and they were having a case of the vapors that the military was developing a rifle even more powerful than an AR which would be even deadlier which, of course, means more gun control is needed more than ever.
I don't know whether it's better to ignore the ignorance or call them out on it.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Will I be any deader if I get shot with a .277 Fury at 3,000 fps than I would be if I were shot with a .277 Fury at a paltry 2,750 fps?MarkCO said:
Looking at the general ballistics I see the .277 Fury essentially duplicating the performance of a .270 Winchester from a 24" barrel in a 16" barrel, and going to 80K psi in order to do that.
Sure its a huge step up in power from the .223 (so I guess it would be considered "more deadly" but there really isn't more dead than dead.)
SO, what we've got is the performance of a 100 year old round (of course with the latest designed bullets) using extreme high pressure to pull this off in a 16" rifle that suits current military tastes.
I think I'd like to see multiple independent "use histories" about the guns and how long they actually hold up, instead of vague manufacturer and military claims of their testing.
Of course, that won't and can't happen until after service adoption and actual field use. Till then, its a curiosity, only, to me....
Sure its a huge step up in power from the .223 (so I guess it would be considered "more deadly" but there really isn't more dead than dead.)
SO, what we've got is the performance of a 100 year old round (of course with the latest designed bullets) using extreme high pressure to pull this off in a 16" rifle that suits current military tastes.
I think I'd like to see multiple independent "use histories" about the guns and how long they actually hold up, instead of vague manufacturer and military claims of their testing.
Of course, that won't and can't happen until after service adoption and actual field use. Till then, its a curiosity, only, to me....
and .270 Win, 7mm Mag, etc.
There are a LOT of good cartridges that spell "luke-warm" for the .277 Fury for hunters and target shooters. But dang, if 20 cases will last a hunter his whole life, and 2000 rounds through a rifle, that is interesting at least.
The Army has a not invented here mentality and overall I think the 6.8 is a mistake in the form they made it.
The key is the new sight that you can hit at 1000 yards with.
But that is true with a 6.5 and x 47 or Lapua it would be a true intermediate cartridge (or 6.5 CM).
Can that 6.8 really penetrate armor at 800 yards? Could a 6.5 CM/Lapua be made to do the same thing in a lighter package?
They might as well have used a 308 case and beef it up, I think all the 6.8 case stuff is just gimmick and creates a you can go 308 system.
When I say barrel length, they made it as long as they wanted for the average. You can fold it and use it in any vehicle. Nice. Way to go.
But you could do the same in 6.5.
I think there is going to be a re-think on this. Not sure where it goes. You can put a can on a 5.56 and the sight and have a very capable rifle (and the Marines have the HK that can be done with and done away with the SAW.
I think a larger caliber in the 6.5 area is the way to go as a split that works better, I don't buy the 6.8 as anything other than arrogance, ego, stupidity.
Sig has done a phenomenal job on all the Rifles and MGs. We might be looking at a WWII split like the M1 Carbine and 45 caliber machine guns.
Funny the French can go from the FAMAS to the HK416 and not an issue but we have to maintain the rear charging handle and the lame forward assist adding cost and complexity because we can't adapt. Weird stuff.
The key is the new sight that you can hit at 1000 yards with.
But that is true with a 6.5 and x 47 or Lapua it would be a true intermediate cartridge (or 6.5 CM).
Can that 6.8 really penetrate armor at 800 yards? Could a 6.5 CM/Lapua be made to do the same thing in a lighter package?
They might as well have used a 308 case and beef it up, I think all the 6.8 case stuff is just gimmick and creates a you can go 308 system.
When I say barrel length, they made it as long as they wanted for the average. You can fold it and use it in any vehicle. Nice. Way to go.
But you could do the same in 6.5.
I think there is going to be a re-think on this. Not sure where it goes. You can put a can on a 5.56 and the sight and have a very capable rifle (and the Marines have the HK that can be done with and done away with the SAW.
I think a larger caliber in the 6.5 area is the way to go as a split that works better, I don't buy the 6.8 as anything other than arrogance, ego, stupidity.
Sig has done a phenomenal job on all the Rifles and MGs. We might be looking at a WWII split like the M1 Carbine and 45 caliber machine guns.
Funny the French can go from the FAMAS to the HK416 and not an issue but we have to maintain the rear charging handle and the lame forward assist adding cost and complexity because we can't adapt. Weird stuff.
Last edited:
It is 600 yards, and yes, it can. And no, a 6.5CM can not, with the same type of bullet, but it can at 300 yards. IMHO, the MAIN point of the sight and cartridge is to be able to stop enemy combatants with 1 round in the 400 to 600 yard range, and that it will do. It is changing the composition/duties of the squad as well.
Define "armor"...
seriously, any time anyone mentions armor penetration, without mentioning WHAT armor they are using as their standard, the point is meaningless.
Real world considerations matter ALOT. It's not just range and penetrating ability, its also, angle of impact, shape of the armor, what particular material the armor is made of, and how it is made, among other things.
The old WWII GI "steel pot" is NOT bulletproof against rifle rounds at longer ranges a straight on hit will still penetrate, but a glancing hit will often not.
SO, just WHAT armor is the new round expected to punch through at several hundred yards???
The other thing I wonder about is the "new" sight system, is it going to live up to claims in the hands of average line troops???
What I mean by this is the simple point that until we reach the sci-fi ability of small arms bullets to steer themselves and become a "fire and forget" thing, the best possible sight systems will not live up to their potential if they troops using them are not well trained to shoot.
SO just what is the standard for line troops these days? I don't mean "snipers" who practice constantly, I mean the regular troops. Once they get out of training, how often do they actually get to shoot and practice???
My personal experience dates from the post Vietnam 70s, and range time for most Army troops (and ALL the support troops) was once a year, MAYBE....
I'd be interested in hearing from people with personal experience with the current training levels, both in CONUS and deployed overseas.
Even the most advanced sight system won't work well if the troops don't know how to shoot.
(Of course, why bother with that, troops have full auto weapons, artillery/mortars and air support on call,,,so I suppose individual marksmanship isn't a huge priority....
)I happen to know that specifically the grunts of the 1/504 of the 82nd sees very, very little trigger time.
That is why I said up-thread that putting 100K of these weapon systems into the hands of the grunts coming out of AIT will be an enormous waste of resource, because 600yd shooting is not something taught in their schools.
Heck, 100yds is out of reach for most of the graduates.
That is why I said up-thread that putting 100K of these weapon systems into the hands of the grunts coming out of AIT will be an enormous waste of resource, because 600yd shooting is not something taught in their schools.
Heck, 100yds is out of reach for most of the graduates.
Back when the M1 Abrams was the newest, high tech armor one of the famous gun writers was given a "tour" explaining the fire control system and even letting him fire a few main gun rounds.
Laser range finding, weather sensors determining wind speed & direction, even sensors determining barrel condition (droop due to firing heat, etc) and a computer to calculate them all together and adjust the sight to take them all into account.
The writer made a comment about how easy it was to hit with, and how he didn't see how anyone could miss.
The officer told him that troops do miss, despite all the gadgets. The writer replied "How can that be, I did it, easily!"
The officer's reply has stuck in my memory, as both honest and accuracte, to this day.
He said "yes sir, you did. But YOU know how to shoot!"
Laser range finding, weather sensors determining wind speed & direction, even sensors determining barrel condition (droop due to firing heat, etc) and a computer to calculate them all together and adjust the sight to take them all into account.
The writer made a comment about how easy it was to hit with, and how he didn't see how anyone could miss.
The officer told him that troops do miss, despite all the gadgets. The writer replied "How can that be, I did it, easily!"
The officer's reply has stuck in my memory, as both honest and accuracte, to this day.
He said "yes sir, you did. But YOU know how to shoot!"