|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 186 Likes: 1
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 186 Likes: 1 |
Maybe we are coming full way around to the UK Enfield bullpup rifles and cartridges of late 1940s: no need for a longer medium range capable 'hunting' cartridge for most infantry engagements as shown fighting in Europe / Eastern Front and South East Asia. But more capable than the cartridges the German sturmgehwer ( spelling?) was chambered in.
From memory, the Enfield bull pups were chambered for two experimental cartridges, one of which was circa 7x47 or 7x49.
Are we coming back to 6.5x55 Swedish or something close? Good ballistics, penetration without excessive recoil? The issue I can see is weight of ammo/ amount infantryman can carry.
The high pressure ratings and short barrels raise red flags to me as a structural engineer:RAM plus durability. Also adding another diversified supply item for logistics and manufacturing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,172 Likes: 14
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,172 Likes: 14 |
So following the history of US military rounds crossing over with extreme popularity in the civilian market...
Do you see this round following suit?
Is that dual metal case even reloadable?
Edit to add: I saw where they are claiming this round can be reloaded. I note that there is some ammo out there loaded in standard brass cases. Personally I would rather have a 260 Remington or 7-08. A lot of military rounds became very popular because ammo was cheap. The 5.56 and the AR15 are incredibly popular. We probably won't see a flood of civilian M7 rifles on the market due to cost and I don't see the Fury being special at all. 260 or 7-08 would have made too much sense Or, a .308/.338/.358 necked short-action case, shooting a 6.5mm "accelerator" round, so they could keep the pressure down. GR
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,431 Likes: 8
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,431 Likes: 8 |
The rifle and ammo may not be optimal in many areas but IMO the real game changer here is the sight that's going to go on it.Vortex Optics' New Military Scope1-8x30 LPVO FFP optic with etched reticle so it's still useful without power. Built in laser rangefinder that adjusts for drop and shows wind holds. Here is where it goes over my pay grade: "It is a full-function display and somewhat customizable, capable of listing drop, wind holds, and a complete visible menu of functions for a better/faster user interface. There is a digital compass inside the unit, and when combined with the laser range finder, and a full-function display, you can use what Vortex is calling an “augmented reality mode” where soldiers can tag a waypoint, target, friendlies, etc.—known as target reference points. And they can send those target reference points wirelessly to other members of their squad. The scope becomes part of a full network of interfacing smart systems—scopes, visors, phones, whatever." So I'm guessing that this new optic can be used to send info for arty, air strikes, send fire concentration info to other riflemen in the unit, all kinds of things. It makes every single soldier a forward observer if I'm reading this right. Any number of weapons and headstamps can send a bullet at a certain velocity to have good terminal performance "way out there", but the vast majority of soldiers can't hit much way out there. If this sight proves to be rugged and reliable that one big drawback seems to have been overcome, although soldiers still have to hold a good sight picture and squeeze the trigger. ![[Linked Image from armytimes.com]](https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/vFNgFTXJo8caVWHO3z2G0HckGSE=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/B665FFW4SJGYJFAECKLNQNEHPM.jpg)
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery.
Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,902 Likes: 11
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,902 Likes: 11 |
This is a great idea go back to a heavier, more recoil, harder to shoot system with less ammo!
Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,522 Likes: 17
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,522 Likes: 17 |
All they needed to do was adopt the 6.5 x 47 Lapua! Or God forbid Creedmore? Or Grendel. Royalties would have been cheaper than the upcoming failures. Infantry isn’t faring too well in Ukraine. Myst be the cartridge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,595 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,595 Likes: 1 |
Looks like they are still trying to outdo the 257 Roberts.
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 12,172 Likes: 20
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 12,172 Likes: 20 |
I’d give a penny for JB’s thoughts on this but I expect he’s too smart to wade this mud hole.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,352 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,352 Likes: 1 |
260, 6.5, 7-08 would not have fed the contractor pigs enough $$$
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168 Likes: 16
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168 Likes: 16 |
The rifle and ammo may not be optimal in many areas but IMO the real game changer here is the sight that's going to go on it.Vortex Optics' New Military Scope1-8x30 LPVO FFP optic with etched reticle so it's still useful without power. Built in laser rangefinder that adjusts for drop and shows wind holds. Here is where it goes over my pay grade: "It is a full-function display and somewhat customizable, capable of listing drop, wind holds, and a complete visible menu of functions for a better/faster user interface. There is a digital compass inside the unit, and when combined with the laser range finder, and a full-function display, you can use what Vortex is calling an “augmented reality mode” where soldiers can tag a waypoint, target, friendlies, etc.—known as target reference points. And they can send those target reference points wirelessly to other members of their squad. The scope becomes part of a full network of interfacing smart systems—scopes, visors, phones, whatever." So I'm guessing that this new optic can be used to send info for arty, air strikes, send fire concentration info to other riflemen in the unit, all kinds of things. It makes every single soldier a forward observer if I'm reading this right. Any number of weapons and headstamps can send a bullet at a certain velocity to have good terminal performance "way out there", but the vast majority of soldiers can't hit much way out there. If this sight proves to be rugged and reliable that one big drawback seems to have been overcome, although soldiers still have to hold a good sight picture and squeeze the trigger. That a cool concept and it appears Vortex is getting it to work. The issue is in a near peer conflict anything emitting laser or other energy will get accurate counter fire very fast. With modern sensors it is just like shining a flashlight around at night.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4 |
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. "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! 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. The ballistic tests with the Fury performed in this video are VERY impressive. I don't deny that, still, more of a Special Opps weapon if you ask me, then again, the days of the average GI in a firefight are a thing of the past. Watched the video. Well it did go bang every time except for the first try. The ballistic test being ammo loaded with a solid copper 113 gr. bullet going 3049 fps. Not bad. Even with a mono metal bullet it did not penetrate the body armor at close range. Accuracy was pitiful for a scoped rifle. Both guys mentioned the rifle being heavy. Full auto tests did not exhibit any special controllability, better than a M14 on full auto. I would say that the 7.62x51 could easily have matched the "Fury" in any of the tests. If it shot better it might work as a long range rifle pretty good. The average GI may very soon find himself shooting at someone, not sure who. .308 shooting 3061 fps? 3049 fps with a 113 grain Mono bullet. Sort of 25-06 ballistics. What I meant was that in their tests the 308 would have done as well as the Fury. With a barrel length to match the rifle in the video including the suppressor velocities near 3000 fps are possible with 150 grain bullets. Pretty sure a 150 gr. monometal bullet going that fast would be very comparable to what the Fury did to the body armor plate in that video. Just imagine how fast that same bullet could be pushed with a steel case head incorporated into a 308 case and pressures upped to 80K. ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/FzKwB27Z/Screenshot-2024-05-02-at-13-26-46-308-Winchester-150-pdf.png)
Last edited by rickt300; 05/02/24.
Dog I rescued in January ![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/yYDjsxrQ/IMG-0124.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4 |
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. "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! 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. The ballistic tests with the Fury performed in this video are VERY impressive. I don't deny that, still, more of a Special Opps weapon if you ask me, then again, the days of the average GI in a firefight are a thing of the past. Watched the video. Well it did go bang every time except for the first try. The ballistic test being ammo loaded with a solid copper 113 gr. bullet going 3049 fps. Not bad. Even with a mono metal bullet it did not penetrate the body armor at close range. Accuracy was pitiful for a scoped rifle. Both guys mentioned the rifle being heavy. Full auto tests did not exhibit any special controllability, better than a M14 on full auto. I would say that the 7.62x51 could easily have matched the "Fury" in any of the tests. If it shot better it might work as a long range rifle pretty good. The average GI may very soon find himself shooting at someone, not sure who. Did you actually think the way they were shooting that rifle would lend to any accuracy whatsoever? "average GI style". Those guys are supposed to be good but yes their style and field position pretty much represented 2 1/2 inch groups. On the other hand I have several rifles I could easily go prone with and shame them.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4 |
another issue with this is that the Army is going to issue this crap first to the Airborne troops. The ones in first by parachute, with dicey resupply and support, and any possible extra manpower that shows up would be using different weapons and ammunition. A recipe for disaster. During WW-2 we had units with soldiers carrying BAR's, 1903's, Garands, 1919 machine guns, M1Carbines, Thompson Sub Machine guns, 1911's and 12 ga shotguns. With mechanized units add the M2 machine gun. The Garand, 1903 Springfield, 1919, and BAR used the same ammo but used different magazines and feeding methods. Same with the 1911 and Thompson. They managed to keep troops supplied 80 years ago. It shouldn't be that hard with today's logistics and technology. And having different tools for different jobs worked. I'm not so sure this one size fits all is the right approach. Yes, the 277 round is a lot more powerful than 308 or 5.56, but it still suffers from all the same negatives that led to the 308 and M14 being dropped by the military and the 5.56 and M16 being adopted. Heavy weapons, less ammo available and greater recoil is why the 308 was dropped. I also have concerns about the long-term durability of the weapons with an 80,000PSI cartridge. Not every soldier needs that much power. There are times/places where more ammo and less recoil is more important than being able to make a one shot kill at 400 yards. A properly loaded and handled 5.56 is capable of one shot kills at 400 yards. As for a lot more powerful I would characterize it as some more powerful than the 308 and a lot more powerful than the 5.56.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4 |
The rifle and ammo may not be optimal in many areas but IMO the real game changer here is the sight that's going to go on it.Vortex Optics' New Military Scope1-8x30 LPVO FFP optic with etched reticle so it's still useful without power. Built in laser rangefinder that adjusts for drop and shows wind holds. Here is where it goes over my pay grade: "It is a full-function display and somewhat customizable, capable of listing drop, wind holds, and a complete visible menu of functions for a better/faster user interface. There is a digital compass inside the unit, and when combined with the laser range finder, and a full-function display, you can use what Vortex is calling an “augmented reality mode” where soldiers can tag a waypoint, target, friendlies, etc.—known as target reference points. And they can send those target reference points wirelessly to other members of their squad. The scope becomes part of a full network of interfacing smart systems—scopes, visors, phones, whatever." So I'm guessing that this new optic can be used to send info for arty, air strikes, send fire concentration info to other riflemen in the unit, all kinds of things. It makes every single soldier a forward observer if I'm reading this right. Any number of weapons and headstamps can send a bullet at a certain velocity to have good terminal performance "way out there", but the vast majority of soldiers can't hit much way out there. If this sight proves to be rugged and reliable that one big drawback seems to have been overcome, although soldiers still have to hold a good sight picture and squeeze the trigger. Like it but several other optics we already have can do the same thing just not mounted on rifles. Still a nice toy that looks like it could be mounted on a M4.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,534 Likes: 4 |
However the Fury works out the rifle can be fitted with uppers chambered for 7.62x51, 6.5 Creed. Could happen pretty soon.
Dog I rescued in January
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,522 Likes: 17
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,522 Likes: 17 |
Looks like they are still trying to outdo the 257 Roberts. Neck it back up 7x57. The beginning
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,821 Likes: 28
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,821 Likes: 28 |
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. "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! 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. The ballistic tests with the Fury performed in this video are VERY impressive. I don't deny that, still, more of a Special Opps weapon if you ask me, then again, the days of the average GI in a firefight are a thing of the past. Watched the video. Well it did go bang every time except for the first try. The ballistic test being ammo loaded with a solid copper 113 gr. bullet going 3049 fps. Not bad. Even with a mono metal bullet it did not penetrate the body armor at close range. Accuracy was pitiful for a scoped rifle. Both guys mentioned the rifle being heavy. Full auto tests did not exhibit any special controllability, better than a M14 on full auto. I would say that the 7.62x51 could easily have matched the "Fury" in any of the tests. If it shot better it might work as a long range rifle pretty good. The average GI may very soon find himself shooting at someone, not sure who. Did you actually think the way they were shooting that rifle would lend to any accuracy whatsoever? "average GI style". Those guys are supposed to be good but yes their style and field position pretty much represented 2 1/2 inch groups. On the other hand I have several rifles I could easily go prone with and shame them. I did not find by the video their quick shooting style being resentative of anyone trying to shoot for group accuracy.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want. Rehabilitation is way overrated. Orwell wasn't wrong. GOA member disappointed NRA member 24HCF SEARCH
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,821 Likes: 28
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,821 Likes: 28 |
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. "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! 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. The ballistic tests with the Fury performed in this video are VERY impressive. I don't deny that, still, more of a Special Opps weapon if you ask me, then again, the days of the average GI in a firefight are a thing of the past. Watched the video. Well it did go bang every time except for the first try. The ballistic test being ammo loaded with a solid copper 113 gr. bullet going 3049 fps. Not bad. Even with a mono metal bullet it did not penetrate the body armor at close range. Accuracy was pitiful for a scoped rifle. Both guys mentioned the rifle being heavy. Full auto tests did not exhibit any special controllability, better than a M14 on full auto. I would say that the 7.62x51 could easily have matched the "Fury" in any of the tests. If it shot better it might work as a long range rifle pretty good. The average GI may very soon find himself shooting at someone, not sure who. Did you actually think the way they were shooting that rifle would lend to any accuracy whatsoever? "average GI style". Those guys are supposed to be good but yes their style and field position pretty much represented 2 1/2 inch groups. On the other hand I have several rifles I could easily go prone with and shame them. You and 99% of everyone else on this board.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want. Rehabilitation is way overrated. Orwell wasn't wrong. GOA member disappointed NRA member 24HCF SEARCH
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168 Likes: 16
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,168 Likes: 16 |
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. "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! 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. The ballistic tests with the Fury performed in this video are VERY impressive. I don't deny that, still, more of a Special Opps weapon if you ask me, then again, the days of the average GI in a firefight are a thing of the past. Watched the video. Well it did go bang every time except for the first try. The ballistic test being ammo loaded with a solid copper 113 gr. bullet going 3049 fps. Not bad. Even with a mono metal bullet it did not penetrate the body armor at close range. Accuracy was pitiful for a scoped rifle. Both guys mentioned the rifle being heavy. Full auto tests did not exhibit any special controllability, better than a M14 on full auto. I would say that the 7.62x51 could easily have matched the "Fury" in any of the tests. If it shot better it might work as a long range rifle pretty good. The average GI may very soon find himself shooting at someone, not sure who. Did you actually think the way they were shooting that rifle would lend to any accuracy whatsoever? "average GI style". Those guys are supposed to be good but yes their style and field position pretty much represented 2 1/2 inch groups. On the other hand I have several rifles I could easily go prone with and shame them. I did not find by the video their quick shooting style being resentative of anyone trying to shoot for group accuracy. The video was sped up because watching groups be shot in real time is boring and will lose views on YouTube.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,659 Likes: 19
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,659 Likes: 19 |
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. "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! 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. The ballistic tests with the Fury performed in this video are VERY impressive. I don't deny that, still, more of a Special Opps weapon if you ask me, then again, the days of the average GI in a firefight are a thing of the past. Watched the video. Well it did go bang every time except for the first try. The ballistic test being ammo loaded with a solid copper 113 gr. bullet going 3049 fps. Not bad. Even with a mono metal bullet it did not penetrate the body armor at close range. Accuracy was pitiful for a scoped rifle. Both guys mentioned the rifle being heavy. Full auto tests did not exhibit any special controllability, better than a M14 on full auto. I would say that the 7.62x51 could easily have matched the "Fury" in any of the tests. If it shot better it might work as a long range rifle pretty good. The average GI may very soon find himself shooting at someone, not sure who. Did you actually think the way they were shooting that rifle would lend to any accuracy whatsoever? "average GI style". Those guys are supposed to be good but yes their style and field position pretty much represented 2 1/2 inch groups. On the other hand I have several rifles I could easily go prone with and shame them. You and 99% of everyone else on this board. Minute of pitbull ought to be common term in regards to accuracy
MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,821 Likes: 28
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 44,821 Likes: 28 |
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want. Rehabilitation is way overrated. Orwell wasn't wrong. GOA member disappointed NRA member 24HCF SEARCH
|
|
|
|
|
507 members (22250rem, 06hunter59, 1234, 17CalFan, 10gaugeman, 160user, 55 invisible),
4,615
guests, and
1,323
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,701
Posts18,534,699
Members74,041
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
