Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire GarandThumb and the Army's new .277 round

135gr not 113gr. And no, it doesn't drop like a rock past 600 meters, that's why the cartridge was developed, to allow the infantry to engage from 400 to 1000 meters.

Wasn't the last US combat parachute jump in 2003? 20 years of war since?

While I get your point for the immediate future - what's the likelihood that we're gonna drop soldiers from the sky before we'd have this rolled out to other units AND in a situation where we couldn't resupply those same troops?

Ahh..I misheard him, I guess. I swore he said '113'.

My opinion is it's an answer to a question that never should've been asked. It's too complicated. It's a ballistic nightmare because it's going to burn barrels. It doesn't better what we have or what we could use to better advantage. The case is complicated and untested under battle conditions where logistics can be a problem. They're going to do what they want despite what any logic would dictate.
If it works they'll keep it.. If it doesn't work they'll probably keep it.

In the real world, not your mystical number hysteria fueled world you under rate the 308 and overlook obvious failings of the Fury. I don't consider a more complicated two piece bi metal cartridge case a bonus. I also do not consider 80K psi a bonus. Energy at 1000 yards is not truly an important issue as generally we don't have that many shooters capable of making hits that far no matter what the cartridge. The advantage of the M249 is not necessarily cyclic rate of fire but ammunition capacity. To add the amount of ammunition a M249 gunner can carry is pretty impressive. Not so much with the Fury of either flavor rifle or MG. You laughingly mention drop at 1000 yards, apparently not knowing that drop can far more easily be calculated than wind deflection. This would have to be calculated with either cartridge.

Failings of the Fury. Muzzle blast is going to be incredible. So a suppressor pretty much has to be utilized. This adds length, weight and a question. How long can a suppressor handle the muzzle pressure and heat generated by the Fury? Will the rifle function without the suppressor? Hearing damage is pretty much a given when a lot of people in close proximity are blasting away using rifles equipped with muzzle brakes. The question being how many rounds will the new suppressors be able to handle before they need to be cleaned or replaced or removed. Beyond these little considerations how much more expensive will ammunition be? Will it be possible to manufactured in the quantities needed?

As many have already said, it's overly complicated for mass production, can't hardly believe the military has chosen such a round. The 6.5 CM would have a much better option for world-wide deployment, simple, easy to manufacture and solves many of the problems the 556 has, longer range, heavier high-BC bullet, longer range. Say what you want about the CM but it's becoming the #1 choice for long range shooting classes for good reason (easy to shoot, effective, long range capable- 1,000 yards - affordable and available). Ammo is hard enough to source once a conflict heats up, can only imagine the shortages when the complicate case is short of production needs.

I have two 308s and they are fantastic but they can't keep up with the CM as range increases past 500 yards.

The .277 Fury is a dumpster fire as a military cartridge IMHO.

Ha ha ha too funny. This system was designed to make certain people rich.

"to allow the infantry to engage from 400 to 1000 meters." This comment is hilarious. Gun battles where the infantry has to "engage" at over 400 yards are restricted to pretty open areas. Say Afghanistan where elevation can be used to help with observation. Once you get out around 500 yards, other than harassing fire you start to need specialized personnel like snipers or simply call in air assets or artillery.

You didn't mishear. It may very well be 135 and probably is at 6.8 but you heard correctly.

Fifty some years ago, the masses proclaimed it was the end of the world as the US military abandoned the M-14 in favor of the AR-15/M-16. The round was incapable of incapacitating the enemy. The rifle was pure junk. "The toy from Mattel".

I personally always felt the 5.56 was extremely under powered for a combat weapon. But when you are planning logistics for combat where you expect 50,000 to 100,000 rounds to be fired for every enemy casualty, I suppose size and weight of those rounds must be a major consideration.

I am excited to see that our fighting forces will be equipped with a dependable man stopper. Especially when that man is armored.

I doubt the teething problems with the weapon or the ammo will hold a candle to the problems our troops experienced in Vietnam with the introduction of the 5.56 and M-16.

Yes, 80 Kpsi will be hard on barrels. They make new barrels every day, screw a new one on. My Uncle told us they used to shoot the fifties until the barrel glowed bright red. Screw it off and put a new one on. Several times a night. That was 80 years ago, I bet we have the tech to do it today.

Youse guys need to lighten up on the Army brass...duplicating the .270 Winchester in a short casing is not that big a screwup. Let's look at some other branches, for instance the Navy Littoral Combat Ship...before it's over, it will have cost the taxpayers 100 billion, and it don't work, and has zero survivability in a war with China. The Gerald Ford carrier was a little pricey, but was even more powerful than a .277 Fury, I'm told. Or how about the Air Force F35 program, back in 2013 it was 400 billion over budget, and failed to meet advertising in most areas. I shudder to think what the bill is by now.

"I personally always felt the 5.56 was extremely under powered for a combat weapon" - maybe, but I sure as hell don't want to be shot by one!

I initially thought the same thing. That the 5.56 was underpowered. Turns out the many mountains of dead the round has piled up are still dead. The M16's teething problems were caused by McNamara being a cheap SOB. As for barrel life I seriously doubt that the M7 can come anywhere near the sustained rate of fire of the average M4. Throw in the number of rounds either operator can carry the M7 loses badly. Guess running back to the truck to get more ammo wasn't figured in. This all said yes a somewhat bigger round like the ARC or Grendel would have been just fine.

Good call. I went back yet again with closed captioning and right at 4:09 he clearly states "here we have the 113 grain round".

That may or may not be correct but it for sure is what he said.

Can't argue that point. Still, If I have to take a round, my chance of survival with a wound from a 223 vs 30-06/308 are significantly better. The ballistic tests with the Fury performed in this video are VERY impressive.

It's an interesting battle rifle and I bet it's a solid option in some roles. I bet a lot of other roles will still be better served by a lighter 5.56 with quality ammo and lots more of it per load-out. Good that there are options for our fighting folks.

The point has been made above but most rounds fired are not hits. Colonel Cooper insists that all shots must be hits. But he ignores the idea of covering fire.

Tons of ammo is expended keeping heads down while someone is maneuvering or calling in air strikes or artillery, etc.

This new rifle might be a good answer to the military’s decades long search for a DMR/battle rifle.

Personally, the LMT MARS in 6.5 CM is my choice

BMT

Under 200 yards hit in the same area of body having shot a few deer with the 5.56 my experience says your wrong on survivabilility being significantly different.

Ballistically better than .308.

Launch flames.

I'm sure the MIC is happy, regardless of the troops' plight on the ground.

Yep.