6.8x51mm or 277 fury new military ammo

[Jim Watson]

That is a serious nit pick. 6.5 has long been a standard offering and there is about zip point diddly difference between that and 7mm.

I thought so, too; but something directed them to 6.8.
Splitting the difference? The story about the boss hunting with a .270WCF? Sharp pencil ballistics?
There is an interesting line in Ackley about the lethality of the .256 Pedersen, but we didn't get a 7mm so we darned sure weren't going to get a 6.5.

I find it tough to get hits beyond 600 yards with good commercial equipment, maybe the new gear will make everybody an expert.

 

[ed308]

I seem to recall they didn’t go with the 6.5 pill due to feed problems.

 

[ciwsguy]

I don’t get the hype...

About the 277 Fury. As for me, I’m just getting in to 7.62 x39. I just don’t see this new fangled round becoming successful in the civilian market. As for me..... I’ll pass on it. I already have enough calibers to reload. No interest in going somewhere else.

 

[reynolds357]

I can only answer the bolt lug question. Bolt lugs won't be a problem. PSI is Pounds per square inch. As an extreme example, a 460 Wby vs A 5.56 NATO. Both operate at proximate PSI. The 460 puts an astronomical amount more total force on the bolt face than the 5.56 does.

 

[Unclenick]

Well, "astronomical" is going a bit too far. Where peak pressure is the same, it will be the ratio of the two case head interior at the pressure ring areas in a static analysis or about 2.4 times more bolt thrust from the Weatherby. In dynamic analysis, it also depends also on the difference in brass cross-section area at the pressure ring, as that delays the head stretch back to the bolt face. Generally, pressure is already dropping by the time that happens, though this, in turn, depends on how quickly the bullet accelerates past its point of peak pressure in the bore, so bullet sectional density, powder burn rate, and all the rest come into it.

 

[ciwsguy]

Anyone watch Military Arms Channel on YouTube? The host had a panel discussion about the new rifle and ammo. It didn’t sound like any of the panel was fully supporting the new rifle/ammo. Cost will likely be enormous.

 

[RC20]

First I don't see it becoming a civilian round rage, Sig is going to release the same type in other calibers (with the right pressures for those calibers). As noted the Civie version of the 277 is down loaded.

Lots of views on the new rifle and the cartridge though it should also include the Fire Optic and the suppressor/recoil reducer.

The highest level opponents possible (well the one left, the Soviet Army is getting ruined) have body armor.

I seem to recall they didn’t go with the 6.5 pill due to feed problems.

Urban legend at best. Any caliber can feed, you just have to do the feed right and its been done from 22 to 125 mm smooth bore (the afore mentioned Soviets use auto loader in their tanks)

Actual the Germans have an auto loader SPA 155 mm (I believe the Sweeds as well and the US is workign on it)

Pistols in the early days were harder, but now? Hollow points feed uber reliably. Never had a failue to feed in my Sig 9mm (1500 rounds roughly)

Personally I think it was the Army Arsenal just having to design their own bullet. They don't get to design much any more.

I am an old far and I expect if I could rest a rifle with that Fire Optic on it I could hit a man sized target at 1000 meters. So worst case you only hit 1 out of 5 times?

That saves using 1000 rounds to kill someone up close.

Yes I expect some adjusting and probably specially in the barrel lengths. So, mostly your 1000 meter shots done by select riflemen.

The new M250 can hit accurately out there with a burst as well. Word is the SAW could not hit the broad side of a barn. Ergo, Marines gone to M-27 that can.

 

[akinswi]

I wonder if this means the military will dump there surplus of 556 onto the civilian market?

 

[44 AMP]

reported on the internet today (MSN I think)

The Army has picked, and its the SIG rifle, LMG and its 6.8mm rounds, and one company has filed a challenge order with the GAO against the choice.

Reportedly, the Army wants 107,000 rifles and 13,000 of the Squad Automatics, and an unspecified amount of ammo, all bought from SIG, for a paltry 4.7 Billion dollars.

Other than the claims about long range accuracy, little is known about the ammo, or at least, little is being said, beyond 80k pressure, and 6.8mm bore size. And the LMG will run up to 12,000 rnds before the barrel needs replacement.

It SEEMS this decision did not go through the usual procurement process, and some folks are having a problem with that....

Its entirely possible that the military ammo will not be available to the civilian market. The military AP 5.7mm isn't. Its possible the new 6.8x51 round will be classed as AP and not allowed for civilian sale. Until that is known, speculating on reloading it is pointless.

Certainly its possible to run a regular brass case at a regular pressure (lower than 80k), but I don't see WHY one would bother, as its already been done and wasn't useful/popular enough to become a commercial round.

Always remember that the military's priority is not "get the best" its "get the best that meets mission requirements at acceptable cost".

There is a difference.

And, opinions of what is best and what is acceptable cost, naturally vary quite a bit.

I have only one hope about this, and that is, that IF the new weapon is adopted and IF it does fail to perform to promises, that it fails on its own merits, without the "help" the M16 got (which we paid for in blood, failed to get the govt to change their minds about using it, anyway...)

 

[hounddawg]

lots of good comments here so I don't have a heck of a lot to add. Looks to be just another money pit to me

 

[stagpanther]

Sig already has the 277 Fury Cross rifle listed for sale on its website.

 

[Pistoler0]

From my reading they had 6.8 as their ideal diameter and a specific bullet weight in mind. And built the cartridge and gun around that projectile. I would love to know the why behind that. But i have not found the answer yet.

As I understand, the 6.8mm projectile was chosen by the military because of their requirement to defeat advanced level IV body armor "at distance" (600+ yds), so they had a B.Cs and a certain bullet kinetic energy in mind.

In addition, the cartridge was also required to deliver optimal velocities (able to defeat such body armor) from 16" barrel rifles, suppressed, and thus the need for the 80,000 psi chamber pressure and the compromise with faster barrel wear. Because of the muzzle blast from such a short barrel at such high pressures they plan for this weapon to be run suppressed as a matter of course, and this should alleviate the recoil for the war fighter somewhat during follow up shots. I saw somewhere only 10 ft-lbs of recoil quoted for the suppressed Sig Cross platform in 277 Fury.

The Army wanted a system that could do double duty for CQB and DMR, thus eliminating the need for 2 different cartridges, 5.56 and 7.62x51. The result is a compromise: 300 Blackout would be better for CQB, 6.5 C or 7mm Mag would be better for DMR. It all was a result of the Army's "Small Arms Ammunition Configuration" (SAAC) study. Incidentally, I have not been able to locate this study on-line and I don't know if it is available to the public, if any of you has a link it would be greatly appreciated!

But in conclusion, .277 Fury (6.8x51mm) sounds like a highly specialized round tailored for military use, I am not sure what it could do for a civilian shooter that other cartridges cannot do more easily (and cheaply). Although at least, it seems that Sig Sauer's hybrid cases are going to be re-loadable, according to Guns and Ammo.

And other "Fury" family cartridges are planned.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I can't even imagine what the muzzle blast is going to be out of a 13 inch barrel at 80,000 PSI.

All I know is I wouldn't want to be next to a guy lighting that off.

All I can thing is...

The British went down this road over 100 years ago with the .276 Enfield cartridge. That design ramped up chamber pressure to about the maximum of what could be achieved with the propellants at that time and used a specially designed heavy bullet..

 

[Pistoler0]

I can't even imagine what the muzzle blast is going to be out of a 13 inch barrel at 80,000 PSI.

I think that's why the plan is for this to be exclusively a suppressed system.

 

[ballardw]

I am wondering about the first batch of these issued to soldiers and the logistics of support equipment.

The magazines are unlikely to fit current magazine pouches, so they will require new pouches. Which may not fit nicely on existing support gear. Heavier rounds = fewer rounds for the same weight.


Arms racks. (The M16 was a problem for existing racks when issued)

Manual of Arms for Drill and ceremony.

 

[9MMand223only]

The US Military just become the most deadly small arms army on the planet, totally lethal precision out a good ~300 YARDS past military #2 on this planet. There is nothing close, its a giant leap in force multiplier.

To put it in basic terms..

They just made every single person more capable than a Pre year 2000 era Sniper. You now have an entire field full of snipers. That is the way. But its also balanced so it can be used in close, with folding stock.

M24 Sniper Rifle. Very capable. 800M range. Bolt.
New rifle? same range, automatic, and more powerful with shorter barrel.

This is total game changer. I feel bad for anyone who is dumb enough to field an army against the US Army soon. No chance. Thousands of snipers on the field.

 

[RC20]

As I understand, the 6.8mm projectile was chosen by the military because of their requirement to defeat advanced level IV body armor "at distance" (600+ yds), so they had a B.Cs and a certain bullet kinetic energy in mind.

As there is no difference between 6.5 and 6.8, the Army just pulled that out of their hat.

They designed the round (Army, in house) to meet the specs and I am good with that. There is nothign magic about 6.8 that 6.5 is not.

A Hornady or Sierra could have done the same with 6.5 or 6.8 and it would have done just as well. 6.5 maybe a smidge less drop (6 to 9 feet as it is out at 1000 meter is a huge deal).

The whole process is far better done than the M-16 (which could not have been more wrong)

That said, it is also a work in progress. Barrel changes on the M5 are easy, so they may well go with a shorter barrel, they may mix and match or they may setup for a theater. There are 8 inch barrel versions.

In Jungle you do not need 1000 meters, but you don't get that without a cost, you can't get any accuracy past 300 with an M4.

The M5 has a folding stock and you can go with shorter barrels (dismounts out of Bradly)

So this is also a doctrine testing period as well as hardware.

The Fire Optic seems bulky for a urban combat, they say not. It does not mean you have to use that FO either. You could issue ACOG or Eotech for urban combat.

And finally in this case, its not cost but capability driving the train.

USMC is also experiment doctrine wise with the M-27, dropping a SAW from a fire team.
Is an accurate M-27 better than an inaccurate SAW? Does many fires make up for a SAW suppression (and why could not a SAW be made to work with magazines? Forget which but someone did it and made it work both ways (Israelis I think )

Clearly the M5 with the Fire Optic allows a grunt to put the cross on at 600 meters and hit. Further possible for a steady fire position (and you can be steady at 1000 meters)

The Army is going with the M250 machine gun in place of a SAW type. I don't know if its right or not and it may well be USMC is more right for what they plan (though its hard to sort out the USMC right now, I don't believe in their Island Doctrine).

 

[ed308]

There’s a difference. They tested 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm, 7mm and 7.62mm. As I recall 6mm/6.5mm provided the best accuracy. 7mm proved to be the most destructive. 6.8mm provided accuracy that was close to 6.5mm but damage that was closer to 7mm. I think the 6.5mm also had mag problems.

 

[ballardw]

Now its about range.

Until it isn't. IIRC one of the reasons the M-16 / 5.56 combo was accepted was because the place we were using them seldom required accuracy past a couple hundred yards. Mostly because visibility was limited. Then suppression was made a big part of the game because the targets really weren't seen.

So perhaps another "last war" syndrome is creeping in. The open country in the dust bowl allowed and often required long ranges.
What if the next shooting scrape we get in has the same issue with visibility?

I also wonder how that long range accuracy comes into play with troops firing from inside Bradley fighting vehicles and similar while moving.

 

[chadio]

Lots of interesting data and opinions here.

I wonder if this means the military will dump there surplus of 556 onto the civilian market?

Historically, has this ever happened with ammo? I'd be interested to know.