If the new ammo is a 6.8 that means the old guns will be obsolete and unable to fire captured 6.8 ammo. As long as no one steps up and starts making the 7.62x51 ammo and sells it to countries like Afghanistan or Ukraine that currently is using our ammo supplies up.
kwg
For liberals and anarchists, power and control is opium, selling envy is the fastest and easiest way to get it. TRR. American conservative. Never trust a white liberal. Malcom X Current NRA member.
Why not just neck-up the 6.5 PRC? Personally, looks totally misplaced as a military cartridge, if they need more bullet, the 6.8 SPC looks good or even, brace yourself, the 6.5 CM (that would really put people up in arms, pun intended)!
Necking up the 6.5 PRC would also be good. But with the .277 Fury you're looking at 5 in an internal mag or 4 in some, with the wider PRC case 3 in most or with some modification 4. The 6.8 SPC doesn't just look good, it is good. You can use 7-08 brass and fireform it until the brass-cased .277 Fury brass becomes readily available.
My limited education on the matter says military cartridges need 1) performance, 2) mag capacity and 3) ease of manuf. (they gonna need a lot) Bullet weight counts for logistics too, a 100 lbs of 5.56 weighs 2.7lbs, 100 lbs of 7.62 weighs 5.25lbs, hence you can carry twice as much 5.56 as 7.62 ammo.
Making those steel headed cases is sure gonna aid ease of manufacture.
"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever." -S. M. Stirling
I was speaking in generalities of the .277 Fury...yes there were some technological advances since 1923...but looking at the .277 inherent principal of velocity and good ballistics...I'd say we haven't come very far in 100 years. I haven't studied it but the 6.8 Westy isn't much of a game changer either that I can see...what difference does it make whether your holdover is 36 inches or 46 inches (.308) at 500? Ya still gotta hold over...what do you care which crossbar?
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
I was speaking in generalities of the .277 Fury...yes there were some technological advances since 1923...but looking at the .277 inherent principal of velocity and good ballistics...I'd say we haven't come very far in 100 years. I haven't studied it but the 6.8 Westy isn't much of a game changer either that I can see...what difference does it make whether your holdover is 36 inches or 46 inches (.308) at 500? Ya still gotta hold over...what do you care which crossbar?
I think if you were to read the military needs statement/project requirements many of the questions would be answered - among those would be individual cartridge size & weight. Big weight and space difference both in individual combat load and small unit logistics when comparing the 6.8 to much larger conventional 08/06-based & larger ammo; even more so when talking about high-rate squad-mg platforms. Ground operators are carrying heavier loads today than anytime else in US military history. I'm not blowing the horn for the 27-based new stuff just explaining some of the considerations that go into requirements definitions before bids are let. Weight & space capacity understandably remain a very important consideration here.
You seem to be mis informed. the 6.8 Fury is pretty much a 7.62x51 case necked down to .277 with a steel case head. There is no space difference and the weight difference is only the difference between the case head being steel instead of brass so not much. In fact one could call this a giant step backwards. We stopped using the 7.62x51 as a battle rifle because of the rounds taking up too much space and their weight. To add the poor controllability in full auto fire. The 80K PSI in my book is going to be one loud rifle without he suppressor installed and how long will a suppressor hold up to 80K PSI at volume rates of fire. Magazines only hold 20 just like the M14 and the soft bag for the MG is said to hold 50 or 75 rounds. In my humble opinion not a lot compared to the old 249 SAW which carried 200 rounds ready to fire.
The reason for the cartridge switch is the same reason for the aero space industry tellilng us 'we have to put men on Mars.' the catridge switch is good for their armament industry. good business.
The WWII 30-06 wasnt good enough. So the .308 had to be adopted [including the M14 etc ]
Then the 308 [7.62 NATO ] was no longer good enough... have to go smaller..... so we rearmed to M16 and M60.....
and now that is not good enough. the 'optimum cartridge' concept is a moving target. Now we should go bigger.
Wonder how our NATO partners will like this change. Or do we have to pay for that, too?
Govt cheese....yup, that's what I'm thinkin'. We already have a small fleet of littoral combat ships that are mission incapable, and have been since day one. We have the F35 money pit. We are talking about an NGAD plane nobody is sure we need at 300,000,000 apiece. I do see one tactical advantage to developing a small arm that takes very specific unobtainable (by the rabble) ammo...especially if you are expecting civil unrest.
Last edited by flintlocke; 01/24/24.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
Does anyone else notice the irony of the new cartridge being in the same downrange performance family as the .276 Pederson and the British .280?
If they have a brass caswe head then they arent over 65,000 PSI
The pic on the cartridge box and the marketing blurb indicates it's using the steel case head, so I guess one can buy ammo loaded to somewhere's around 80k PSI ...
It's you and the bullet, and all the rest is secondary.
If the military spent as much money on marksmanship training as they do on R&D and newer and better mythology...the US Military would be the most feared in the world. Imagine an entire army of sniper qualified soldiers. IIRC the score in Iraq/Afghan was 250,000 rounds expended per kill. That's almost as bad as Chicago.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
Rict300, I was referring to the 6.8 - I realize that the 277 Fury is a whole different animal. I general terms, the same premise is true and that is too get more bang for size and weight of the cartridge when comparing either to the larger rounds previously used to generate comparable terminal ballistics.
AKA The P-Man
If you cherish your memories with kids, be a good role model . . . . so the RIGHT memories of you mean something to them.
the new rifle is going to infantry (airborne and such) and combat engineers. the 5.56x45 doesn't have the penetration of body armor. the 6.8x51 does out to 600 meters (656 yards).
"Russia sucks." ---- Me, US Army (retired) 12B & 51B
Russian Admiral said, after the Moskva sank, "we have the world's worst navy but we aren't as bad as our army".
the new rifle is going to infantry (airborne and such) and combat engineers. the 5.56x45 doesn't have the penetration of body armor. the 6.8x51 does out to 600 meters (656 yards).
Back in the later part of AFG we almost switched fully out to 7.62 SCARS, since the 5.56 just didn't have the butt for engagements that were happening at alot longer ranges than we encountered in Iraq. The SCARS weren't really awesome rifles, but the 7.62 was much better than the 5.56 in west and south areas we ran around in.
I don't know what the right answer is, but something like the 6 ARC to the 7.62 or 6.5 Creed wouldn't stink. If the 277 works out to give folks more stomp, I am all for it.
the new rifle is going to infantry (airborne and such) and combat engineers. the 5.56x45 doesn't have the penetration of body armor. the 6.8x51 does out to 600 meters (656 yards).
Well defeating body armor at 600 yards is the outer edge of soldier accuracy. And that is where you can see a long ways. Seems like we are setting up for another Afghan war not a Taiwan or Argentina thing. Iran? At any rate no matter how much cussing the 5.56 has accrued the mountain of dead it has built are a testament to it's usefulness.
Rict300, I was referring to the 6.8 - I realize that the 277 Fury is a whole different animal. I general terms, the same premise is true and that is too get more bang for size and weight of the cartridge when comparing either to the larger rounds previously used to generate comparable terminal ballistics.
I used the 6.8 SPC for a while. actually liked it but the Grendel had range on it and a bunch of different bullets to play with. My opinion would have been to just lengthen the AR15 action .4 or so and make a properly seated 6x47 kind of round. Whatever it would take to get a 105 gr. bullet to 2600 fps. Mag capacity would remain high, Ammo weight way more reasonable than the Fury. And better long range penetration than the 5.56.
I'd have taken a couple less rounds in the mag for what the 6 ARC does already.. 108's around 2600 would be a pleasing compromise without changing the platform and still being controllable for fast shooting.
I'd have taken a couple less rounds in the mag for what the 6 ARC does already.. 108's around 2600 would be a pleasing compromise without changing the platform and still being controllable for fast shooting.
I would never ask for fewer rounds in a gunfight. Just match the ARC ballistics with a longer case and higher pressures.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/yYDjsxrQ/IMG-0124.jpg)
