The military has chosen the .277 bore (6.8mm) for its new squad rifle and machine gun. That is why SIG, that has the contract to supply 9mm pistols, developed the 277 Fury.

These contracts are worth millions perhaps billions of dollars. Look for many new developments in all things for the .277 bore.

Interestingly, SIG chose a 140 grain bullet at, fanfare, 3000!

Many years ago Brian Litz wrote an article on “scaling” in which he described the factors that he considered in the design to optimize modern high BC bullets. He mentioned both the 6.5 and 7mm with the 6.5 being just a little small and the 7 as being a just a little big. He considered bullet weight and recoil. So, I wrote to him twice to suggest the obvious, that the .277 would be optimal. He never responded.

Perhaps the engineers at WW made a great decision when they designed the 270 Win!

Yes, Sig is running .277 at 80,000 PSI and with the ability to swap in new barrels, 'cause you're gonna want to. The history of how our military chooses things would leave one to believe they chose .277 just to be different.

Gays, trannies, in the military now this😂

Yeah, just what we need. (sarcasm)


" Back when ", I was running 140 HBTSP at 3000 fps, Surplus 4831 -- long case life.
Not much new. NOW we have new/better powders to BOOT.


Jerry

Hope they do give the 270’s some new life. Although my old ones work fine too.

A 277 140 @ 3k with 80k psi.

Yep, you are going to need to change those barrels.

Actually it was a .277x'03. Same daddy as the '06.

Great minds!

Now that's funny--and this is coming from a 270W loony.........

Jeez, I can do that with RL26 and a 150 grainer and still stay under 65K..........I think........

Well the claim of 140’s @ 3000 is out of a 16”, yes SIXTEEN inch barrel.

That’d be a slayer in an AR15 framed rifle.

Yes the 16 inch barrel is the difference. I run 130s all day long at damn near 3100 out of a 22 inch barrel but increase that to 140 and it's barely 3000, if that. Now whack 6 inches off that barrel and it's barely 2800. So Sig came up with this super strong case and I'm guessing "WUNDER POWDER" and it's back over 3000. That's smoking for a 16" barrel.

No you can't not in s 308 sized case and a 16" barrel

Is it even 308 size?

The late Homer Powley showed that barrel wear is caused by flame cutting which, in turn, increases with pressure. This is why barrels wear out from the chamber on. At 80,000 psi, barrels won't last long.

Who needs a 16" barrel anyway in a hunting rifle? As for military rifle clones, like the AR15 is a clone of the M16, I imagine that special 80,000 psi ammo will cost A LOT more than .223/5.56mm.

Same length, but the shoulder is further forward, and of course a sharper angle, giving it more capacity.

Not sure I care what the US military does or “thinks”... the fact remains, the 270 Win is The Western Big Game Cartridge. A perfect balance of power, trajectory, recoil, and performance. In North America and worldwide.

I vote for expanding bullets, too.

This is going to be great.

Here's a couple good articles on the cartridge and Sig rifle.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/277-sig-fury-demystified/

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...ith-the-sig-cross-rifle-in-277-sig-fury/


And a photo of the rather complicated case:

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2020/1/20/277-sig-fury-an-inside-look/

And despite the recent Ross Seyfried bashing, a good one:

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/ross-seyfried-busting-the-magnum-myth/

My primary thought was that there will be lots of attention given to developing.277 bullets and barrels.

Rick, I’d be good with anything and see what does develop. Not that us poor .277 guys are totally out of the picture anyhow!

They still seem to keep making meat and horns.

Besides, I thought you were switching to the 6.5 Creedmoor

My comments weren’t directed to you Rick, just general musing. Of all people, you know what the 270 Win is and isn’t.

80,000 psi out of 16” barrels? That’s gonna hurt. We’ll need a lot of ear plugs or muffs.

My thoughts, exactly.

I haven’t yet adjusted to these newfangled 60+K cartridges yet.

FC

Brad,
Didn’t even occur to me. Trust you are well. To bad you aren’t out hunting elk!
Best to you,
Rick

Seems ridiculous, why not just go 6.5 Creedmoor or 7-08 with a 20-22 inch barrel. Or better yet just stay with the 7.62..

80k is going to find the weak spots....

This. Sig is not using '06 brass.

I am waiting to see the GI platform they will run it on. Are they gonna scale back up to an AR 10 platform? And will half the "grunts" in our new all inclusive armed forces cry that the arm and munitions are just too heavy? And recoil too hard?

I’m a skeptic. Just don’t see it working as far as costs and practicality.

After watching the links, it makes more sense. GI contract is for belt fed machine guns. Nothing about replacing the venerable M16 platform.

I am correctly corrected....277-30 US 1903

I thot so but wasn’t positive.

That’s HARDLY a 308 W size case.


Jerry

The new round is for a 16" barreled belt fed machine gun

I'm guessing the reason for the 16" barrel is in order to run suppressors on them without being cumbersome

And, heat seeking bullets, that politician was talking about.

That would make sense.

I dunno squat about suppressors. Would 80K pressures be hard on ‘em?

FC

One can only assume, or rather it would be better to say hope, that the powers-to-be who are in charge of selecting new guns and new cartridges for the military, do their homework and come up with something good that will work. I have no idea what all goes into the process of developing such cartridges, but I do know this.......for about 25 years, the 270 was my cartridge of choice for whitetail deer and I killed several truckloads full with it, and although I have used other cartridges in recent years with good success, nothing killed a deer any better than the 270 did.

I never used it on anything bigger, but if I'm ever lucky enough to draw a Kentucky elk tag, I will use the same 270 that I bought over 40 years ago.

There are plans to issue the new Military Rifles with suppressors,otherwise muzzle blast from a 80,000 psi round would be horrific.

The whole project seems like they are chasing their tail,they need a 16 inch barrel because of the added length of the suppressor,which they need because of the high pressure which they need to get the necessary velocity from the short barrel.

Does anyone else see the absurdity of the thought process?

I have a Kimber Adirondack in 6.5 Creedmoor with a 18.5 inch barrel,the Hornady 120 grain GMX Superformance load gives me 2950 fps without a suppressor,and 2980 fps with one.
All of this at about 60,000 psi.

Since the difference in terminal effect between a 6.5mm 120 grain projectile and a 6.8mm 140 grain projectile is undectable.( I know because I've killed a bunch with both.)And the the BCs of the bullets are very close,what real world gain do they expect to see by inventing a new cartridge with a pressure that is going to be a mechanical nightmare with respect to a host of components.

The thing will be hell on barrels,as well as bolt and receiver components as well. They could use a 20 inch barrel in a 260 Remington with 130 grain bullets and do the same thing at 65000 psi. Because of the lower pressures, a really short suppressor that extends 4 inches beyond the muzzle and a couple of inches behind it would be as quiet as a full length suppressor on the high pressure 6.8.

If I being a Dentist and a rifle looney of the first order know all this stuff,why does anybody spending the money in the military not get it?

Just amazing.

The military is going to suppressers to eliminate hearing damage to soldiers, not simply because of the pressure

That's why I use them too,but all my points are valid. You can do the same thing at lower pressure in a slightly longer barrel and a slightly shorter suppressor without the issues that will be coming at 80,000 psi.It requires special(expensive) brass. It wears out barrels a lot faster,and it will wear out other components faster as well. It seems like opening a can of worms for no good reason.

I'll give the military procurement folks the benefit of the doubt that this actually meets some need better than other options, but a big cynical part of me wonders how much donations to various Congressional "charities" played a part in the selection process?

I recall someone said that the F-35 is one of the biggest successes in lobbying history, maybe Sig Sauer knows how to play that game?

It seems to me that this has the earmarks of being the equivalent of the $300 hammer.

Jim

I wonder if the belt fed machine gun will have a suppressor.....

I'm very skeptical.

As machine gun, it's going to eat barrels.
At those pressures.

If it ever makes it to issue rifles, they are going to be big and heavy.
Recoil has to be near 308/30-06 levels. The levels people complained about 60 years ago.

Full auto? We had a 9 pound platform with a 147gr bullet at 2800fps.
It was deemed too hard to control on full auto, and emasculated to semi.
Heck, most AR platforms over the last 40 or 50 years haven't had full auto.

So, will they give our troops a big, heavy, hard kicking, semi auto rifle.
That probably would impress the hell out of some.
Those who no nothing of ballistics, or history.

After all,
It is state if the art, for the '30s.
Well, the 1930's.

BINGO !!

I read it uses STEEL cases...... Not brass!

IF, IF that’s correct, no reloading.

Jerry

IIRC steel case head, brass body.

Ok !

Thanks.

Jerry

The .277 winchester with all the naysayers, ( beerslayers) has been excellellent over the years,
Underdevoloped for newer modern purposes but steadfast for our elk killing and N.P.'s.
I have always found it overperformed( with good bullets). I can see why the military and Nosler Co. have decided it just might be ultimate bore diameter.
Make mine a Jack O'Conner special model 70, wood and blue, straight 4x scope and you have the quintessential Desert Bighorn rifle. - .270 wcf

Plenty of folks approaching 3000fps and 140s from the Creedmoor using R26, albeit with 24”+ barrels. I suspect they’re running some really high pressures too, but somehow they’re getting away with it.

John

The military has minimal care about costs.

And, if it provides a fighting advantage, such as increased range from a smaller package, a barrel need only last one firefight. It then gets replaced afterwards.

That may be true, but logistically speaking, replacing barrels to teams at the nether regions of places where getting logistics into austere environments isn't a good way to roll. Today's military picks are leaps and bounds better than what they have ever been and typically have some smart folks thinking through those sorts of problems. Most weapons are shot ALOT before they are picked and they are picked apart by end users. Not saying we haven't ever gotten crap, but todays gear and equipment has a Test and Evaluation phase that roots out most problems.

And most military folks could give a darn about our 24HCF love for 6.5/7mm/308 calibers. We only wanted what worked and if it is a .277 bullet that offers better range than what we have and does it in a package that is man portable and reliable it is mission accomplished.

It may turn out to be a "upgrade" M25 version. It could be that any machinegun would be on a crew served mobile platform ( where extra barrels/ammo can be stored) Anything out in the windy desert that will beat the 77gr 5.56 would be nice. In town, I just don't see anything beating the M4. We shall see! I "prefer" a drone, robot or any "standoff" weapon be used...our troops are too precious for most fights.

This is correct and the case has a similar OAL to the .308. I to wonder why not just base it off a .308 case then?