Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters new military cartridge

What is the story on the new cartridge being adopted by the military. I hear that it’s a 6.8mm.Thanks

I heard it was similar in size to the 308, but 6.8 (about 270). Guns are like 10 lbs. Don't know how well it will go over with the rank and file military. Seems to me they would adopt the 6.5 Grendal or 6.8 SPC to fit in existing rifles with only a barrel and bolt change. Grendal would offer range but probably fewer in a magazine. 6.8 might offer a few more in a magazine but limited to 200-300 yards. Grendal would go out to at least 600 yards.

Why change what works? 5.56 for 200 yards and under and for house to house fighting. .308 for longer range marksmen. Use both in a squad like WWII with 30-06's and 30 cal carbines. If they get overwhelmed, they always call in for air support or artillery.

To me the Grendal would offer the best of both. Harder hitting than 5.56, but not as hard or as long range as the 308.

The new military 6.8 operates at 80,000 PSI

Yep, because the case-head is steel.

It's pretty easy to Google all the particulars....

Mimics the 100 year old .270 WCF ballistics.

I looked up the SAAMI Sig 277 Fury spec and sure enough, the MAP is 80,000 PSI.

Oh, boy. Even though the spec warns don't go past 65,000 PSI, I can imagine some home rebarreling projects landing in the news...

Or else Sig limits their commercial ammo to 65,000 PSI...

ok. did a little googling: SigSaur is advertising ammo for the 277 Fury: 150gr polymer tip at 3120 fps, 24” bbl

any chance that rifles so chambered will be available to the public?

I thought they were putting them in the Sig Cross, but don't hold me to it ST.

I've never seen a 277 in the wild yet.

https://www.sigsauer.com/sig-cross-rifle.html

I've noticed the same thing - no gun availability. Funny thing is gun stores had ammo in stock like a year ago. Complete reversal from the usual gun first then ammo sometime situation.

Hmmm .. I think that would present some powder issues. I can't think of any current offerings that continue upwards in a predictable manner when pressure gets that high. Maybe there are, not sure. But I can see, with current powders, the possibility / probability of needing to stay around 65,000 PSI or below. Wonder if Mule Deer would chime in on this aspect?

Dunno. I'm not smart enough and experienced enough. However, for the near future I can picture Mr. Working Gunsmith and their liability insurer not touching this cartridge until more is known.

I'm still wondering if the Sig 277 Fury commercial ammo that you can order online today is spec'd at 65k or 80k PSI?

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 you just use the brass-cased .277 Fury at normal pressures, it will be a great cartridge. Run it in a short action with a 3" magazine and seat to about 2.95" with a 23 inch barrel and load around 49 grains of H4350 and a 140 grain projectile. Velocity will be a touch over 3000 fps. Or you can neck it up to .308 and run 180's at 2750 in a 22 inch barrel using Varget with the same magazine set-up and C.O.A.L.

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.

Maybe they should just neck down the .308 Win to .277 and call it the 270-08.. Nah,,

Yes, only yesterday I was able to fit 20 loaded SPC cases in an empty plastic bullet box (not much bigger than a match-box) to carry in my back-pack.

The .277 Fury case will hold around 4-5 more grains of powder with less case stretching.

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.

Thought the 6ARC was the result of a military contract?

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

If they have a brass caswe head then they arent over 65,000 PSI

Making those steel headed cases is sure gonna aid ease of manufacture.

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?

Government cheese.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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).

Wonder why they didn't just use the 7/08 Like the original Pedersen for the Garand, or the Ballistics for the 6.5 Needmore or the 260 Remington?

Seems they just needed to invent something else to satisfy the liberals, and make sure there were no civilian uses, like range pick up brass...

is this steel case head, designed that the case is only good for one shot?

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.

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.

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 would never ask for fewer rounds in a gunfight. Just match the ARC ballistics with a longer case and higher pressures.

i noticed that the rifle is a 13" barrel not including the suppressor.

So it's using a chinese commie made optic?

Interesting very interesting but I don't see myself jumping thru my ass to get one. You guys can have my shot at one. Have a partially custom 03 Springfield with 26" barrel in 270. I'll bet I don't have any problem getting it to shoot 140 hornadys up to 3000+ without the steel cases and 80k psi. You guys chase the dragon it's your turn..mb

There isn't one rifle that will do it all. Never has been, never will. My idea would be to provide a good reliable and simple weapon that'll keep on working no matter what, and train the kids who'll carry it to be riflemen with it.

Cartridge choice is purely academic. What isn't academic is those kids' ability to overcome, and adapt to the current situation - that's more important than what damned rifle they're carrying. Does the current military address that? I don't know - you tell me. But, an anecdotal historical example of what I'm saying would be the Marines who landed on Guadalcanal armed with what by then were obsolete bolt action Springfields. Despite the rifle's "slow" rate of fire, firing ammo way more powerful than was strictly necessary, they overcame a vicious enemy mainly by adapting to the startlingly unfriendly and unfamiliar terrain and winning by shear willpower.

If we are depending on technology to win the day and not the resourcefulness, will power, and basic infantry skills of the "boots on the ground" then I submit that we'll have a long hard row to hoe in the future. The K.I.S.S. principle applies here I believe, but we humans always tend to overthink stuff like this.

One last thought: if we don't keep a rifle simple then howinhell do you quickly train a cadre of young stupid urban/suburban kids who've never fired a gun in their lives to master it and at the same time become competent warriors in a couple short months of hurried training in the event of a cataclysmic need to create a whopping big Army? I hate to say it but therein lies the beauty of the hoary old Kalashnikov with its compromise cartridge.

i'll take Eugene Stoner's rifle, you can keep your Kalashnikov.

The rifle seems to be a fancy do over for the AR10, a complicated sighting system, not very light. Bet that SAW machine gun gets to be a "Pig" with the 200 round bag on it. That gun will have to at least have others carry ammo for it just like the M60. The rifle might be a good sniper weapon or designated marksman tool. Just not feeling it.

the Squad Automatic Weapon machine gun (m250) will shoot the 6.8x51 too.

the m338 (medium machine gun) will shoot a 338 Norma Magnum round, but i haven't heard that the Army accepted it.

Amen!

Go back and read my final paragraph. I was opining for a stupid simple platform that a non-gunner (or even a previously "anti-gunner") can be taught to master in a few weeks if the country is in crisis mode - when the Hun is at the gate so to speak. (Not to mention quick and easy to manufacture by the millions when the chips are down and don't require cutting edge ammo.) Personally I would way more prefer an AR than a Kalashnikov too, but taken in context of adhering to the K.I.S.S. principal being applied to overnight mobilization of an inept citizenry I'm not so sure. And if you don't think we're teetering on that brink.....

We can go on and on about innovative weaponry, stuff that titillates the sophisticates and answers questions that are either rarely asked or address theoretical tactical applications, but sometimes I wonder if we've taken our eye off the ball.

Kinda like modern automotive technology - new cars and trucks that contain every bell, whistle, gimmick, and creature comfort known to man - that won't haul one's ass from point A to point B any better than generationally older vehicles do, not to mention being of such complexity that the average guy doesn't have a hope in hell of repairing it. Look me in the eye and tell me an $80K pickup will haul a load of mulch home or a load of cinderblocks back to the farm better than a bog-simple '69 Ford - or a Lexus SUV haul four bags of groceries and and a soccer Mom better than a Rambler station wagon. Then there's supply chain and diagnostic services that'll be among the first things to go up in smoke when the sh*t hits the fan, but that'll be moot because if said sh*t is in the form of an EMP every vehicle made in the last 40 years will be stationary anyway.

I'm convinced that a helluva lot of "advancements" in so much of our lives aren't that at all, merely the result of engineers and smart/tricky inventors who're either merely trying to show off to each other, creating new markets out of whole cloth, bamboozling gullible customers, or merely justifying their salaries. We humans (sheeples) gobble it up but are we really better off for it? That includes things gunnery, IMO, and military gear.

Heavier bullet means more weight to carry. When I was active duty I carried 300 rounds of 5.56, 75 rounds of 9mm and 6 rounds of 40mm grenades. The 5.56 had a 55 gr bullet. Make that bullet weigh 150 gr and make the powder charge heavy enough to propel that 150 gr bullet and you just added to the weight someone has to pack day in and day out. My entire combat load weighed out at 84 pounds and I carried every day for months at a time when I was with the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command in the Middle East. I would not be very happy about the people behind a desk increasing my load out in weight.

If I could wave a magic wand and "poof", here's a new main battle rifle, it would be something even simpler than the Kalashnikov and fire a cartridge with maybe a bit more punch than the 5.56 - something that would uplift the common grunt's effectiveness without encumbering him any more than he already is, like MAC pointed out. I'll submit that the gov't isn't thinking in those terms. God knows what the gov't is thinking.....

The extra weight is the biggest problem I see with this platform. The XM7 is something like 3 lbs heavier than the M4 platform. The combat load is supposed to be 140 rounds, versus 210 for an M4, which is a huge problem in itself. There are few times I've wished to be carrying fewer rounds of ammo. Also, as you're well aware, combat arms guys carry more ammo than the basic load.

The XM250 combat load is 400 rounds - as I recall M249 gunners used to carry at least 600-800 rounds between the 249 and on their bodies, plus extra belts in their assault packs and distributed throughout the team. So they'll be saddled with even more weight with the heavier ammo. Plus there's a limit as to how much weight can be carried before they're combat ineffective, so this new outfit is reducing ammo count on the most casualty producing weapon in the team.

My knees and back are screaming just thinking of lugging all this schit around.

It was, but not the military as a whole. It seems it was for a specific Spec Ops unit, and my understanding is that some units get a type of funding that is used for such items and not really tracked. Though “tracked” is not really the correct term. Spending restrictions would be better. As they can use it to acquire special items that normal military units cannot purchase.

Supposedly the reason for the 80K psi round is to defeat body armor, I gather that the troops will train with the 65K pressure stuff and perhaps use it for developing world scuffles like we have been involved in since 1953. Personally, I think everything about it is too much more weight for our already overburdened infantry; and for civilians totally pointless. YMMV

The fact they want more horse power than the .556 makes sense to me but this is a poor way to get there,there are many chamberings and calibers that will do the job they require with out reinventing the wheel, the 6.8 is a non-starter the way they have it designed, Military intelligence is a Oxymoron.
someones getting a big payoff AKA kick back on this project. Rio7

The 260 rem. would have been a easier, cheaper way to go. It would have met 85% of the set goals for a new cartridge. But, no the gov't must spend tons of money and time by making things way harder then they need to be. Somehow Sig won the contract, to solve a problem that was made harder by the military. If the military had to dum down the qualification requirements to get inept solders who could not handle the recoil of the 556 cal. to be able to qualify. What do think they will do with this new cartridge? More recoil and 80,000PSI. A 50 yard qualification? To be able to engage targets at ranges beyond 800m meters accurately? I think not. Tons of money and a huge defense contract for SIG. This how and why we have $600 Dollar toilet seats! Nothing to see here! It is Governments job to do things in the most inefficient, costly way possible. Create non existent problems, then spend tons of time and money to fix them.

Some things to keep in mind: the Next generation squad weapon (NGSW) program had certain requirements; .277", 140gr boattail @ ~3100fps. That's 270 WSM ballistics. But to obtain this from <16" barrels took higher pressures than a 270WSM. How long will the barrel last at 85k PSI? The design criteria seems to be a remnant from the 600-800yd engagements in the mountains of Afghanistan. To my way of thinking, the best COMPROMISE for an all around military rifle for the future would a BREN 2 (AR18/SCAR derivative) or Robinson XCR type rifle in 6.5 Grendel or 6mm ARC. A mid- caliber intermediate type cartridge balances capacity, weight and mid-range (400-600 yd) performance between the 5.56x45 & 7.62x51. IMHO. Mark&Belle

Kinda demonstrates why there is a phrase "military aged" and an age cut off date......lol

If I have to carry anything other than a rifle, let it be meat.

Geesus christ you fkn twatts.

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:

Always fun to watch the wheel be re-invented.

Apparently testing on body armor out to 600 meters,showed the sweet spot was with a 277 inch 140 grain projectile at 3100 fps at the muzzle.

Next they wanted it in a suppressed platform with a reasonable overall length,in a 16 inch barrel in a case about the size of a 308 it took 80,000 psi to get there. Hence the need for the hybrid case of brass with a steel base.

It is a lot of effort and expense for something that may not work in the real world.

They could have gone with a 6mm ARC and had a much more powerful cartridge than the 5.56 in a more reasonably sized platform. With the correct 110 grain ammo,it would do most anything you needed.

The squad automatic weapon could have been for the larger cartridge as well a long range rifle for designated marksmen.

Trying to do everything with the larger cartridge kind of created a Frankenrifle. A big bulky rifle with bulky ammo that will be an undue burden on regular soilders, and probably lead to failures in the field because of the high operating pressures and the tight tolerances required to contain it.

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.

The 6.8 is meant to be a battle rifle that will perform well against a near peer adversary. The 6.8mm are heavier than 5.56.

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.

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.

And the barrels will last a very short time. Really bad idea for many reasons.

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.

277 fury drawing:



308 Win drawing:

Pretty sweet round. Hot shootin’. Hope the rifle platforms can hold up.

The rifle itself, even without all the jazzy accessories, is much heavier in hand than our M4s. The boys are gonna have a lot to get used to.

We have a box or two of 277 ammo up north. Waiting on the rifles to become available to the public next.

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

Barrels are said to be good for 1,200 rounds

Boy that won’t take many qual courses before it’s whooped.

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.

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.

Be interesting to hear how it shakes out.