Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters U.S. Army moves to 6.8X51

Lots of articles out there on the 277 sig/6.8 testing. They said they wanted a round that would defeat all known or planned body armor at 600 yards out a 16” barrel with certain weight restrictions. The 6mm and 6.5mm were in the running too. Apparently the 6.8 did this and the others didnt so they settled on 6.8. Maybe something else would have more energy or less wind drift or whatever at 1000 yards like a 6.5 with same bullet weight but apparently at 600 yards the 6.8 was able to pass their armor tests and others didnt.

I think the higher pressure thing has some good implications for hunting applications. Sig is offering a 150 accubond load that is 2820 out of 16” barrel. Pretty nice potential there for a reasonably compact suppressed big game rifle. Not to mention I bet a 6.5 and 30 cal fury is not far behind.

If you think about it the “270 pressures” (65k) we consider max today have been around for 100 years. Wasnt around but that was probably considered risky and barrel burning in 1925. Seems we have a new 270 round possibly ushering in the next performance step up.

Lou

After WWII they decided they needed,
Lighter guns, and ammo.
Less recoil and controllable full auto.

Soldiers got an updated Garand firing an identical performing round.
Similar weight, recoil, ammo.

The M16 finally delivered what they had wanted.
20 years later.

50 years of perfecting it, now, they want what their grand dad administrators threw away.

The new 6.8 is huge step up the food chain on the battle field in termini of performance

Why would it be any louder? Hi pressure makes it louder? I thought it was just how much powder you burned and how big the bullet was that did that.

So let's see if I've got this right:

- the round' OAL is longer, and longer enough so the existing mag's can't be used. New ammo, new rifle, new mag's

- the new mag's must be wider to accommodate the longer OAL, which means the existing body mag carriers won't work? So new mag carriers.

- not sure from pics if those are 20, 25, or 30 round mags. If they're not 30 rounders, then will troops be packing more mags to match current basic load, or will the basic load now shrink?

- if basic load shrinks, then absolutely basic combat tactics have to adjust wrt finding, fixing (suppressing), and destroying.

This will be interesting to watch...

Rumor has it that the whole package - rifle and ammo - was going to be called "The F35 Project" but that name had already been taken...

Think high pressure air escaping from a steam boiler vs low pressure air escaping from a flat tire. I'm guessing High pressure gas escaping from a rifle (80,000 psi vs about 62,000 psi) would make it louder if it's unsuppressed.

This could be a major deal breaker for many hunters in the field.

Garand thumb’s video make it look controllable with the suppressor, but it’s still a fairly heavy and expensive rifle/ammo package for the average soldier, especially when he/she doesn’t need the longer range capability. Seems like a great option for some scenarios though.

My understanding is that the average soldier is still going to be using the m4 platform, and only those considered "combat arms" will be receiving the new platform.

That would make much more sense.

The .277 Fury or 6.8×51mm, (designated as the .277 SIG FURY by the SAAMI) is a centerfire rimless bottlenecked rifle cartridge announced by SIG Sauer in late 2019. Its hybrid three-piece cartridge case has a steel case head and brass body connected by a locking washer to support high chamber pressure of 80,000 psi

I hated the M16, since was a POS! It reminded me of a Daisy BB gun. When shooting tracers, it was evident that the bullets were tumbling. Never had a chance to put it on paper. But I hated the M16.
I loved the M14. It was much more accurate, more powerful - nothing to dislike about the M14.

Dan, I carried a M-1 in boot camp, then he average G.I. didn't look like a pack mule with the crap,they carry now, i don't know how we made it, with so little equipment. Rio7

The M4 / M16 platform has to be regarded as one of the most successful designs in combat arms. It's even being copied (see the Zbroyar clone). The idea that criminal intent exists in its development and acceptance by the U.S Army and Marine Corps, has hair all over it. Men must have their beliefs though...

As to implementation I suspect we will see a mix of M4's and this Sig. One of the advantages of the 5.56 was that a soldier could carry enough ammunition to engage single targets, AND, provide cover fire for movement. Given the size and additional weight of the new Sig round, I don't think the individual soldier will be carrying as much ammunition. 7 mags of the new Sig round is going to be heavier with fewer rounds on person than its tiny 5.56 brother. Current issue chest rigs are designed around the 5.56, so that will likely see some modification. How and how much? <shrug>

Is this a good move for our military? I think it could be so long as smart implementation carries the day. Much longer lethal engagement ranges doesn't mean every soldier should carry one. <- I find this point to be intuitively obvious, and I'm perfectly aware that others will not.

Also of interest to me is how this new rifle affects, or is implemented in current CQB and Urban Warfare tactics, where engagement distances can be anywhere from 2 feet to whatever. Imagine the barrel report inside a 10 square foot room...

^^^apparently a lot of officers and nco's agreed with you, in 1965 many, many stories of ''every excuse under the sun was used to delay the issue of the M16 by line units, just short of insubordination." As the dirty chamber, jamming issues continued to surface...one Marine battalion commander remarked, 'once it gets hot and dirty, you basically have a muzzle loader' (referencing the cleaning rod used to knock out the stoppage). As tested, the M16 performed well with DuPont 8208 stick, Olin's ball powder sustitute got grunts killed. The M16A1 forward assist, in '69 was an attempt to solve the problem, which of course it didn't, nothing but religious cleaning did fix the problem....which was hard to do when laying down high volume fire in the military's tactic of the time, 'fire and manuever'.

Sniggly you clearly do not have a clue!

One thing I've often wondered about was lube.

Today, we know how they like it wet.
Was that common knowledge/doctrine then.

A gun getting balky often goes back to good with a few shots of lube,
Was that all those guns needed?

A patch, not a fix. But would some extra oil have helped then go?

I am not a military tactician, but it seems to me the generals have gone all in on volume of suppressing fire (kind of like Napoleans volley fire)...as opposed to well aimed effective fire. Training also reflects these tactics, marksmanship training may have suffered to sexual harrasment training. Noise is intimidating, but nothing saps morale faster than your teammates blood. Standard ammo loadout now is still 7 mags, 210 rds...back in the early days of VN, standard load with the M14 was 140 rds (true that most guys schidtcanned 'stuff' to carry more water and ammo). The future conflicts will tell us whether the generals know their schidt or not.

After my platoon was forced to carry the POS M16, 40 of the platoon were killed because we they were effectively disarmed. The Daisy machine guns were [bleep].
Many of the others got to go to hospitals for extended stays.