US Military Selects New Rifle and Ammunition

[Wyatt Smith]

I honestly don’t think this will go far. The technology is interesting however. I think it’s military use will be pretty specialized.
I bet there will be plenty of gas to operate the action at 80k PSI.

 

[Red Leg]

…and now you know what the conversations were like when the US Army went from muzzle loader to breach loader.

Exactly. The same thinking that had Custer’s troopers using breach loading carbines at Little Big Horn while the Sioux were slinging lead with lever actions. Or while half the troops at San Juan were carrying the same rifle twenty years later while being hammered by Mausers.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

@Red Leg I am curious what the NATO regulations are regarding military cartridges? It realized some outfits are much more flexible with weapons than others.
If it gives our boys an edge I’m all for it, I just have my doubts about this one.

 

[fourfive8]

Comparing transition of something like rifle musket muzzleloader technology leap to trapdoor cartridge technology seems a bit of a stretch for sake of argument if trying to show the superiority of a 270 Short rattle battle to a 223 Rem rattle battle. A little military-industrial complex at work here perhaps or how the brass in think tanks sit around with too much time on their hands and come up with ideas on how to act important, act busy, act relevant or spend money. Caution seems appropriate here if for no other reason than history is replete with such cr!p. And, @Wyatt Smith, your question about the potential issues with NATO or other shared, universal use/supply seems valid to me.

 

[Roller]

That thing may need a can or a brake to mitigate recoil enough to where the average recruit can qualify with it . I don’t see this cartridge being adopted by big army . But what do I know? I can however see it being used in certain applications. Just another experiment with your tax dollars. Why not the 6.8 SPC?

 

[gbflyer]

From the outside it seems like over penetration would be a real concern in the urban environment. I’m no soldier though. Neat to see advances, in any case.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

A lot of details in this article, which was written prior to Sig winning the contract.

.277 SIG Fury Demystified

Speculation on the .277 SIG Fury has practically broken the internet. GunsAmerica spoke directly with SIG to get the scoop on this revolutionary cartridge.

www.gunsamerica.com

 

[RTG]

They invented a super expensive 270 Winchester with double the chamber pressure and no additional velocity…


Wow.

Full velocity from a 16” barrel is what they wanted. Then with a suppressor it’s still manageable in the field.

 

[Puddle]

Hmmm... Let's see if I understand this.

So after around 90 years the .gov circles back to a 6.8mm round in a gas-operated battle rifle?

Remember the .276 Pedersen?

 

[CoElkHunter]

A 16 inch barrel and 80,000 psi might cause hearing loss issues to friend and foe alike. Photo of this new weapon appears to show a can on the end of the barrel, which makes sense except for the added length and weight. There's no free lunch in the ballistic world.

Waiting for @Bob Nelson 35Whelen to chime in on how the 35 Whelen should have been selected

View attachment 463331

…and now you know what the conversations were like when the US Army went from muzzle loader to breach loader.

Or from the M14 to the M16? LOL

 

[gbflyer]

Full velocity from a 16” barrel is what they wanted. Then with a suppressor it’s still manageable in the field.

True. I wonder how they mitigate the heat from the suppressor? Mine gets so hot after 5 rounds of slow fire out of a bolt gun that I cannot see the target through the mirage it generates. Must be a way, I’d like to know what it is.

 

[mdwest]

There is no guarantee that the army transitions to this weapon.

They ordered 250,000 of them.. thats a lot.. but.. the initial allocation is for more testing...

This is much like the FN SCAR procurement that happened several years ago...

A bunch were bought.. they were fielded by the Ranger Regiment, Special Forces, etc.. (where new shoulder fired weapons systems typically land first)..

And now we're buying a variant of the Sig MCX...

MAYBE we see this rifle fielded across the entire military over the period of a decade or so...

or.. MAYBE it goes the same way the FN SCAR did.. and starts to slowly disappear into the night after a few years..

Time will tell..

 

[Red Leg]

@Red Leg I am curious what the NATO regulations are regarding military cartridges? It realized some outfits are much more flexible with weapons than others.
If it gives our boys an edge I’m all for it, I just have my doubts about this one.

There are no NATO ‘’regulations.”

Countries act in their own interests, cooperating when possible. NATO more or less “adopted” the 7.62 at our suggestion, then we switched to the 5.56.

There is no guarantee that the army transitions to this weapon.

They ordered 250,000 of them.. thats a lot.. but.. the initial allocation is for more testing...

This is much like the FN SCAR procurement that happened several years ago...

A bunch were bought.. they were fielded by the Ranger Regiment, Special Forces, etc.. (where new shoulder fired weapons systems typically land first)..

And now we're buying a variant of the Sig MCX...

MAYBE we see this rifle fielded across the entire military over the period of a decade or so...

or.. MAYBE it goes the same way the FN SCAR did.. and starts to slowly disappear into the night after a few years..

Time will tell..

I think the initial low rate production buy is 29K. They will be used by selected units until a full rate production decision is made. 250K would arm every infantryman in the army.

 

[Red Leg]

Comparing transition of something like rifle musket muzzleloader technology leap to trapdoor cartridge technology seems a bit of a stretch for sake of argument if trying to show the superiority of a 270 Short rattle battle to a 223 Rem rattle battle. A little military-industrial complex at work here perhaps or how the brass in think tanks sit around with too much time on their hands and come up with ideas on how to act important, act busy, act relevant or spend money. Caution seems appropriate here if for no other reason than history is replete with such cr!p. And, @Wyatt Smith, your question about the potential issues with NATO or other shared, universal use/supply seems valid to me.

Most requirement developers with whom I have had experience over two careers were pretty damned dedicated to getting the best to the guy or gal in the field despite knee jerk reactions by the press or public who had neither actual combat experience nor knew anything about the actual requirement set.

The Army has been trying to strike a balance between adequate basic load, a compact weapon, and real striking power since Vietnam. This looks like the sort of ammunition design breakthrough that finally does it.

And when you are comparing defense costs, remember that the whole army could be fielded with this rifle for the cost of half a single B2 or three or four F35’s. From a defense contractor perspective, this is a small opportunity set.

This procurement wouldn’t even rate a capture briefing for a Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Comparing transition of something like rifle musket muzzleloader technology leap to trapdoor cartridge technology seems a bit of a stretch for sake of argument if trying to show the superiority of a 270 Short rattle battle to a 223 Rem rattle battle. A little military-industrial complex at work here perhaps or how the brass in think tanks sit around with too much time on their hands and come up with ideas on how to act important, act busy, act relevant or spend money. Caution seems appropriate here if for no other reason than history is replete with such cr!p. And, @Wyatt Smith, your question about the potential issues with NATO or other shared, universal use/supply seems valid to me.

If this new cartridge is designed for "close range" urban warfare from a short barreled rifle, then why is Sig emphasizing it's 6-9 feet less bullet drop at 1,000 yards compared to the 6.5 Creedmoor? I wouldn't think many enemy combatants in an urban setting would be engaged at that distance? Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[meigsbucks]

Got t\hat all figured out don’t you?

The Army has been trying to strike a balance between adequate basic load, a compact weapon, and real striking power since Vietnam. This looks like the sort of ammunition design breakthrough that finally does it.

And when you are comparing defense costs, remember that the whole army could be fielded with this rifle for the cost of a single B2 or three or four F35’s. From a defense contractor perspective, this is a small opportunity set.

This procurement doesn’t even rate an opportunity briefing for a Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman.

I’m surprised the design specification wasn’t for a bullpup design rifle. This would give the shortest OAL for urban warfare.

 

[rookhawk]

Thank you for educating me @Red Leg . Glad you’re part of the AH community.

 

[Red Leg]

If this new cartridge is designed for "close range" urban warfare from a short barreled rifle, then why is Sig emphasizing it's 6-9 feet less bullet drop at 1,000 yards compared to the 6.5 Creedmoor? I wouldn't think many enemy combatants in an urban setting would be engaged at that distance? Maybe I'm wrong.

Sigh. Because it isn’t. It is designed to be a battle rifle that works in urban combat, unlike a M4 that is a carbine that isn’t a very good battle rifle for open terrain.

 

[rookhawk]

I’m surprised the design specification wasn’t for a bullpup design rifle. This would give the shortest OAL for urban warfare.

There are a few bullpup problems. One is they require linkages to operate the trigger that are less reliable and spongy. The bigger issue is no-reuse. The military has hundreds of millions in parts floating around. Stocks. Buffer tubes. Buffer springs. Bayonets. Pop up sights. Rail covers. Slings. Magazines.

Any rifle that can use some of the Colt m16 or M4 parts and accessories saves money, eases in theater supply chain and arsenal repairs, and ensures muscle memory for the soldier that has familiarity and training with some of these gun features already.

 

[rookhawk]

Sigh. Because it isn’t. It is designed to be a battle rifle that works in urban combat, unlike a M4 that is a carbine that isn’t a very good battle rifle for open terrain.

Like that massacre in Afghanistan where they pinned our guys down with RPKs and SVDs picking us off with 30 cals and we couldn’t shoot back effectively because they were out of lethal 5.56 ranges?

It also appears they will have a designated marksman version of the rifle as a bolt gun for very long shots using 277 fury.