US Military Selects New Rifle and Ammunition

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Actually, the specs of the .277 Fury are amazing. I am building a 6mm Dasher rifle that hits that velocity with a 26" barrel in a platform that will weigh 20-21.5 pounds. And that is with a 105 grain projectile.

@Tanks
I can see the reaction of grunts being issued 20 pound rifles NOT.

 

[rdog]

You ever use 77 Grain?

No in the Vietnam era 55 grain was all there was . that is why i loved my L1A1 FN SLR. Bullet diameter is the problem with 5.56 . the 7.62x39 is a better round.

 

[C.W. Richter]

In the early days of VN (until '67-8), it was the .308 (or 3x heavier 7.82 mm bullet) in the M14.

 

[CoElkHunter]

The 277 Fury cartridge looks awfully large in this video

And expensive!

 

[Bert the Turtle]

So we are basically switching to a 6.5 Swedish 130 years after the Swedes?

 

[CoElkHunter]

Looks like another group of cronies is going to spend and make a lot of our $$$$$$$$$ off the deal! It seems way too complicated to meet the objective (typ. gov't. at "work.") Cartridges can already handle 65,000 psi+ (It's the guns that are often the weak link) and 51 mm brass cartridges already exist (.308ish size) that'll push a 135ish gr slug 3K fps. (i.e. 260 AI 3,200 fps FL bbl, there are plenty more. A needmore could likely be tuned up to meet the objective. 6.5 has better bc and sd w/ slightly smaller bullets, thus easier to achieve the desired V.) Reinvention of the wheel on our dime! How much more does the 80,000+ psi gun cost? I'm picturing some gun accidents involving a washer reminiscent of a flywheel/clutch assembly shearing Don Garlits' toes off! Gotta love Big Gov't. at work. We have velcro, WD-40 and duct tape as a result...Oh, and LOTS of cancer. They do that well! How much for the O'Connor-16 SLW (steel lockwasher) contract? lol

The more I think about it, how does Sig get both the military's pistol and now rifle contract? I know they make fine weapons, but so do other manufacturers. Sounds fishy to me?

 

[CoElkHunter]

So we are basically switching to a 6.5 Swedish 130 years after the Swedes?

Well, it's a 6.8, but yes.

 

[CoElkHunter]

@Tanks
I can see the reaction of grunts being issued 20 pound rifles NOT.

WW2 BAR? 18-20lbs. with ammo?

 

[rdog]

WW2 BAR? 18-20lbs. with ammo?

Men were men in those days

 

[CoElkHunter]

Men were men in those days

And sheep were nervous!

 

[lockingblock]

@Tanks
I can see the reaction of grunts being issued 20 pound rifles NOT.

Ask the Marines who decided to issue their IAR ( HK 416 with the pig heavy HK rail), long barrel, heavy optic, absurd IR laser that they tried to integrate a white light into and failed to make it bright enough to be useful…and just to add insult to knee injury, they went with a KAC NT4 suppressor that’s unbelievably heavy as it was designed in the. 90s and intended to be used on belt fed weapons.

I think the actual IAR, fully loaded and field ready, weighs about 14+ pounds. It’s insane.

Almost as ridiculous as their 308 sniper rifles that were over 20 pounds with all the accessories installed.

 

[roverandbrew]

No in the Vietnam era 55 grain was all there was . that is why i loved my L1A1 FN SLR. Bullet diameter is the problem with 5.56 . the 7.62x39 is a better round.

I am a fan of the 77 Grain. Never an issue.

 

[Tanks]

So we are basically switching to a 6.5 Swedish 130 years after the Swedes?

Based on the specs no comparison except for the calibers being a fraction of a millimeter close to each other.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Ask the Marines who decided to issue their IAR ( HK 416 with the pig heavy HK rail), long barrel, heavy optic, absurd IR laser that they tried to integrate a white light into and failed to make it bright enough to be useful…and just to add insult to knee injury, they went with a KAC NT4 suppressor that’s unbelievably heavy as it was designed in the. 90s and intended to be used on belt fed weapons.

I think the actual IAR, fully loaded and field ready, weighs about 14+ pounds. It’s insane.

Almost as ridiculous as their 308 sniper rifles that were over 20 pounds with all the accessories installed.

Isn’t the M27 a replacement for the belt fed M249. I don’t think that it replaced M4s and M16s.

 

[lockingblock]

Isn’t the M27 a replacement for the belt fed M249. I don’t think that it replaced M4s and M16s.

Initially, it was. Now, it’s being issued as a 1 for 1 replacement to remove the M4 from the Infantry. They are 100% HK in all things 5.56 with a small number of SAWs theoretically held in reserve.

 

[rdog]

Initially, it was. Now, it’s being issued as a 1 for 1 replacement to remove the M4 from the Infantry. They are 100% HK in all things 5.56 with a small number of SAWs theoretically held in reserve.

Like most things the government has to do with, the WANKER BUREAUCRATS that dream up the requirements for equipment, do not fully understand its use & never get to use it in the field.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Like most things the government has to do with, the WANKER BUREAUCRATS that dream up the requirements for equipment, do not fully understand its use & never get to use it in the field.

Kind of like the US military bureaucrats in the '60s that stated INITIALLY the M16 didn't need chrome lined barrels/chambers or cleaning kits, because the designer of the M16 Gene Stoner didn't specify the need for chrome lined anything and that the gas system was self cleaning. We saw how that worked out! Every prior US military rifle had chrome lined barrels and chambers, but the expert "desk riders" I guess believed the jungles of Vietnam were drier than the jungles we fought the Japanese in WW2.

 

[Red Leg]

Like most things the government has to do with, the WANKER BUREAUCRATS that dream up the requirements for equipment, do not fully understand its use & never get to use it in the field.

Your experiences with how military requirement development is done and by whom (specifically the US Army apparently) are rather different than mine. Perhaps you could elaborate on the specific wanker bureaucratic roles and where they fit into the process of Army requirement development.

 

[Alistair]

I think an impartial approach should be taken here, as in most things and dismissing this out of hand is unhelpful.

Firstly, the tech. The tech is good, excellent really. This is a singularly impressive round that does things that other rounds don't. It's been developed and designed by very smart folks with a lot of real world experience and crucially a good understanding of military demands, how military contracts work, and how to win them. This is not 'just' a reinvention of 6.8-08. It is a better solution. At least in terms of meeting the demands of weight / durability / reliability / shootability / terminal effect. I trust the experience of those involved in such development and procurement enough to believe that at least.

However, this move should also be taken with a pinch of salt. This is a small contract, for a small volume of weapons. This is, in effect, what my company would describe as a 'test and learn' launch. Just enough product into a single market (specific units, special forces, etc) to assess performance and reception, but not an all in, balls to the wall full scale roll out.

How the system performs over the next couple of years will determine proof of concept and ultimately widespread adoption. Maybe it's markedly better and all GIs will have them. Maybe it over promises and under delivers and none will. We'll see.

I'd say that based on past US small scale adoption of small arms, the odds are against it, but then, you still gotta test to find out, and I think dismissing it out of hand is counter intuitive and nor is it simply 'wanker bureaucrats'. Many, many systems are adopted at this scale all the time, yet derivatives of the boring old M16 pattern have endured.

There's also a lot of head winds that anything new has to overcome with pure performance to become 'the standard'. After all, there's a lot of stuff out there right now that serves the need of a light weight, longer range, better terminal effect .223 replacement. None are adopted. Why? Logistics, cost and inertia.

It doesn't matter if a round is 5% better in the field if it costs twice as much to produce at scale. It doesn't matter if it's 5% more effective if it takes longer to produce, or can't be reliably sourced in the required volumes, or is harder to standardize, or if none of America's NATO allies will come on board. Just look at all the ex-eastern bloc nations who've spent billions and years of time to switch out their 7.62x39 or 5.45x39mm arsenals for 5.56x45. Poland, CZ, Romania, East Germany. They've done that not because .223 is really any better a round than 5.45x39 (IMHO), but because alignment on ammunition is very, very important in a war zone in terms of resupply and having the same stuff as your NATO allies is important.

For this to win as the 'one and only' US service weapon, not only does the weapon and cartridge itself have to be better, but an entire logistical supply chain has to be built around it, at scale, worldwide. At a cost which is competitive with pre-existing infrastructure. That's one hell of a hurdle to overcome (and monetarily far outweighs the weapons contract itself). Not impossible if the round is genuinely better (5.56 did it afterall), but a significant challenge nonetheless.

Right now, this is innovative. It seems a good fit for operational requirements. Only time will tell if it's better by enough to be viable.

At least that's my take, again as a relatively impartial observer with no real world military experience but a strong interest in weapons development and history.

TL;DR. Is this good? We've no idea. Ask again in 10 years...

 

[rdog]

Your experiences with how military requirement development is done and by whom (specifically the US Army apparently) are rather different than mine. Perhaps you could elaborate on the specific wanker bureaucratic roles and where they fit into the process of Army requirement development.

As an Australian i am referring to the Australian army process of deciding on military equipment ie clothing & boots, vehicles ect i have no idea how the US army does things but seeing some of the equipment you have i would say better than us. Weapons we buy from other countries & build under license our our own versions at the Lithgow small arms plant in N.S.W ie the F88 Austyer 5.56 rifle & i can assure you there is plenty of bureaucratic BS involved in that process. We even bought some boots from China that quickly fell apart.