Prarie goat, Carried a 249 my first iraq tour. I loved that weapon. Only fault I could find, you won't read about it in the "gun gack" (or whatever the fk its called): steel sling clip would chew away at the aluminum eyelett cast into the butt plate. Would take year of constant carry, for it to wear out.
It was light, at 14 lbs. Didn't even need to pin it in a turret blasting around the desert. We carried 600 rounds on the body armor. It wasn't too bad. Though my lower back is a bit sore now that I'm in my 40's.
The other gunner in my squad, Roy from Arkansas, he liked his 249. The feller was LIGHT at maybe 120 lbs. But he was wirey. Whole company loved that young man, he was highly motivated, athletic, and never complained. He was shot and killed, we all miss him and tell stories of him every week. If Skinny ole Roy could sling a 249, there's hope:
May you buddy RIP Mainer. It is amazing the loads we carried then and hell, even into my later 30's. I feel it now in my later 40's, but man, it was something we all did back then.
After using the 6 ARC for a spell now, I think it would have been a hit amongst my buddies and I, especially with something 105/108 in size.
Having worked for the DoD for 30 plus years I know the answer to this, but I find this dumbfounding. The U.S. military went away from the 30-06 for lots of reasons. Recoil, weight of ammunition for two. I am and always have been a great fan of the 270 Win cartridge (I know this is different) but it seems to have the same downsides as the 30-06 but even more with it being a special purpose cartridge. They could've just gone with a 270 Win, 6.5 Creedmoor or 7mm-08 and been better off. Just goes to to prove the saying that Defense spending is a jobs program, with capability sometimes being an accidental byproduct.
Regards,
Chuck
"There's a saying in prize fighting, everyone's got a plan until they get hit"
a while back I'll give away a set of reamers, rough in, finish, and throat. that was a 270-308 is this basically the same cartridge? I understand the mil-spec version would have a differently built case with the steel head and all but just wondering about basic dimensions.
a while back I'll give away a set of reamers, rough in, finish, and throat. that was a 270-308 is this basically the same cartridge? I understand the mil-spec version would have a differently built case with the steel head and all but just wondering about basic dimensions.
basically, they took a 7.62x51, made a 2 piece case and necked it to 6.8. the 277 Fury is a brass case made off the 308 Win.
Last edited by tdoyka; 02/11/24.
"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".
a while back I'll give away a set of reamers, rough in, finish, and throat. that was a 270-308 is this basically the same cartridge? I understand the mil-spec version would have a differently built case with the steel head and all but just wondering about basic dimensions.
Well close, but no cigar. Your reamers would not work to build a fury. The fury is a significantly "improved" cartridge. Take a close look at the opening frame of the attached video.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
And the barrels will last a very short time. Really bad idea for many reasons.
I'd suspect salt bath nitride has been tried in this and shown promise life extension like it does for full auto barrels. I don't know either for a fact but I've heard enough from a few friends that this may whats going to happen and extend barrel life. That was a year ago though
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
on a regular steel and stainless steel, i would say about 3000 rounds. but the US government has a chrome plated bore on the rifles. i have used M16A1 made in the late '60s to '70s that still have the chrome plating. i would guess that its around tens of thousands of rounds that still have the bore.
"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".
Boy that won’t take many qual courses before it’s whooped.
This may have been pure conjecture, but I've read where units may use the lower pressure ammo during training to extend weapon life, then switch to the 80K rounds during deployments. That would make sense, as like you said it wouldn't take many qualification courses, live fire exercises, and a trip to JRTC or wherever a unit goes for combat training rotations to burn out a bunch of barrels.
That's what I was thinking PG. There are many days on the square bay during CQB courses we'd easily push through 700 rounds a day or more through our carbines. I am sure it isn't meant for firing like that, but 1200 sounds mighty low for a service rifle. I think the Marine Corps, plain old rifle range is 100 rounds, so doing that course of fire 5 days for a typical range week would have a barrel lasting exactly 2 maybe 3 range sessions. Even doubling that number ain't all that great.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/xd4Vqpr7/Resized-20240201-150923.jpg)
![[Linked Image from xxl-reloading.com]](https://www.xxl-reloading.com/thumbnail/98/8c/b0/1678784959/277_Fury_dimensions_1920x1920.jpg)
![[Linked Image from upload.wikimedia.org]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/.308_Winchester_dimensions.jpg)
