SIG's new .277 Fury round

ApacheCoTodd said:

Barrels, bolts, extractors, ejectors and wallets!

I should imagine that at a military consumption level the loss of brass-on-steel, sacrificial nature of the base would ultimately be very problematic.

Surely, they can't intend a build-up case for a military rifle? The extended costs would be ridiculous - regardless the promises made in the initial enthusiasms.


Todd.

Click to expand...

Alot of assumtions flying around. Its in military trials already and soon to be on the retail shelves. Why don't we just wait for actual results before we decide if its good or bad? If it works then good, if it does not, then thats okay too. At least they are trying something different.

I'm pretty intrigued by it for the handloader because with the stainless steel base you should never have a primer pocket go loose, so in theory the only case life concern would be necks splitting or head separation from head space. I don't know if the head separation concern would be better or worse than it is with brass case ammo but if this case design lasts longer than brass cases then win win for everybody.

someguy2800 said:

Alot of assumtions flying around. Its in military trials already and soon to be on the retail shelves. Why don't we just wait for actual results before we decide if its good or bad? If it works then good, if it does not, then thats okay too. At least they are trying something different.

Click to expand...

My issue? I have zero trust in "military trials" accepting weapons systems on a level ultimately deemed beneficial to the troop. Politicians, manufacturers, beltway thieves, lobbyists and the like end up the winners.

I've personally seen this movie too many times and whenever new&improved comes along there is almost certainly a learning curve borne on the backs and graves of Soldiers and Marines.

Talking about ground-up re-envisioning of a battle rifle gives me the heebie-jeebies and I have NO tolerance for it.

Once these asinine projects get their own momentum going and belt-way bandits start seeing dollar signs, they are very hard to stop regardless facts and real world experience.

I couldn't give two rats' patooties what the civilians want or will accept. THAT is *market rules*. However, when it comes to Service Members' lives, I am completely unwavering in noting the factual results of pie-in-the-sky projects like this.

While one side of this debate is clearly partisan for the round for the round's sake or perhaps even Sig's sake, I stand foursquare against supporting engineers' flights of fancy at the expense of combat effectiveness and Service Members' lives.

No sir, when it comes to trying to underwrite this boondoggle with defense dollars and Troops' blood, I call all involved for the currs they likely are or at least will be proven out to be.

Todd.

ApacheCoTodd said:

Barrels, bolts, extractors, ejectors and wallets!

I should imagine that at a military consumption level the loss of brass-on-steel, sacrificial nature of the base would ultimately be very problematic.

Surely, they can't intend a build-up case for a military rifle? The extended costs would be ridiculous - regardless the promises made in the initial enthusiasms.


Todd.

Click to expand...

I'm betting the military case will be polymer with a different shoulder configuration.

The AR platform was designed to work with pressures in the 50K range. The current .mil ammo operates at right around 70K.

Bolt life suffers greatly.

troy fairweather said:

That sounds good to me, and I am not a big 270 fan. I think it will do good if they let people know they can fire power psi ammo to not just the 80k stuff, guys have wanted a 270-08 for hears , I'm surprised more are not for this round.

Click to expand...

IF...
- It produces .270 WSM velocity out of a 24" Bbl.
- Has lower recoil.
- Un-suppressed muzzle blast is not objectionable.
- Can stabilize heavier, high BC 165 gr. bullets due the 1:8.5 twist.
- fits in a short action.
- Brass is not crazy expensive.

Then it sounds like a long range hunting dream.


Just generally hunt inside of 300 yards.

...so the innocuous 250 yd. MPBR(6"), and ~ 1700 lb-ft of energy from the 150 gr. Speer GS bullet when it gets there, makes the .270 WCF just fine.




GR

ApacheCoTodd said:

My issue? I have zero trust in "military trials" accepting weapons systems on a level ultimately deemed beneficial to the troop. Politicians, manufacturers, beltway thieves, lobbyists and the like end up the winners.

I've personally seen this movie too many times and whenever new&improved comes along there is almost certainly a learning curve borne on the backs and graves of Soldiers and Marines.

Talking about ground-up re-envisioning of a battle rifle gives me the heebie-jeebies and I have NO tolerance for it.

Once these asinine projects get their own momentum going and belt-way bandits start seeing dollar signs, they are very hard to stop regardless facts and real world experience.

I couldn't give two rats' patooties what the civilians want or will accept. THAT is *market rules*. However, when it comes to Service Members' lives, I am completely unwavering in noting the factual results of pie-in-the-sky projects like this.

While one side of this debate is clearly partisan for the round for the round's sake or perhaps even Sig's sake, I stand foursquare against supporting engineers' flights of fancy at the expense of combat effectiveness and Service Members' lives.

No sir, when it comes to trying to underwrite this boondoggle with defense dollars and Troops' blood, I call all involved for the currs they likely are or at least will be proven out to be.

Todd.

Click to expand...

I get where you are coming from but somehow we managed to make it from trapdoor springfields to M4 carbines, so perhaps they are not as stupid and inept as they seem. The world will continue to progress even if we do not so I am all for finding the most effective technology available. Sometimes these projects work, sometimes they don't, but we will never know if we don't try.

ApacheCoTodd said:

My issue? I have zero trust in "military trials" accepting weapons systems on a level ultimately deemed beneficial to the troop. Politicians, manufacturers, beltway thieves, lobbyists and the like end up the winners.

I've personally seen this movie too many times and whenever new&improved comes along there is almost certainly a learning curve borne on the backs and graves of Soldiers and Marines.

Talking about ground-up re-envisioning of a battle rifle gives me the heebie-jeebies and I have NO tolerance for it.

Once these asinine projects get their own momentum going and belt-way bandits start seeing dollar signs, they are very hard to stop regardless facts and real world experience.

I couldn't give two rats' patooties what the civilians want or will accept. THAT is *market rules*. However, when it comes to Service Members' lives, I am completely unwavering in noting the factual results of pie-in-the-sky projects like this.

While one side of this debate is clearly partisan for the round for the round's sake or perhaps even Sig's sake, I stand foursquare against supporting engineers' flights of fancy at the expense of combat effectiveness and Service Members' lives.

No sir, when it comes to trying to underwrite this boondoggle with defense dollars and Troops' blood, I call all involved for the currs they likely are or at least will be proven out to be.

Todd.

Click to expand...

The AR platform is long in the tooth and IMHO an experiment that's gone on far too long. We've gone from a rifle with a 20" barrel shooting a 55 gr bullet to a 14.5" barrel shooting a 62 gr bullet at a MUCH higher chamber pressure. We've gone from a rifle length gas system to a much shorter gas system. All this contributes to higher parts failure rate.

Much of this change is an attempt to change the color of the lipstick on the pig. The 5.56x45 was a poor choice for a military cartridge. Sure, you can carry more ammo, but the lethality of that ammo is greatly reduced. A rifle that craps where it eats isn't ideal.

Big Army is always planning to fight the last war. The current war, the longest in US history, shows no chance of ending soon. In actuality it's two wars, one part consisted of a lot of urban warfare, the other part in very open terrain where we were outgunned in many cases. Big Army has chosen to gear up for the second part.

In all truth there is NO one size fits all combat solution. The US has no general issue subgun in the inventory. It's something that's clearly needed for urban combat. For combat in more open areas we need a cartridge with longer legs.

Both cases can be done on a common lower. Just change the upper and maybe the mags. IMHO the .300 BLK, or something similar, would be an ideal cartridge for urban combat. It does well with shorter barrels and loading it with a midweight bullet would give it a lot of punch at close range.

We desperately need a ground up new design.

I don't think this is a dead end, so much as it's just ahead of its time.

Make no mistake - if the published ballistics are accurate, this round absolutely smokes every other cartridge out there. Magnum performance from a short-action case and a 16" barrel doesn't compare to anything else we have, it's in a class of one.

I'm not sure how this technology scales, but in theory, you could use those silly levels of pressure and a bit slower powder to drive bullets from a 24" barrel to just silly, laser-flat velocities (3500-3600 FPS for a 150 grain bullet and short-action case?), or load up some crazy long high-SD bullets in the case and drive them to similar present-day velocities using a smaller powder charge.

The problem is, I don't think guns today are ready for it. As @ApacheCoTodd said, barrels, bolts, extractors, ejectors and wallets - this cartridge is going to tear them all up. The hybrid brass case looks like a compromise to get an 80K PSI round to work in a more normal 60K PSI gun. I doubt that shoehorning a steel head on to a brass case is really the optimal solution.

I think what this cartridge needs is a clean-sheet redesign for a gun built from the start to handle 80K pressures. The time and R&D money needed to redesign every component of a gun from scratch would be great, but I think the ballistics being promised here justify that much work. Maybe they've already worked these things out with the NGSW, I don't know. But the government money being poured into it ensures that we'll get an 80K-proof rifle eventually IMO. They could spend tens of millions on it right now and get nothing, and that wouldn't even make the top 100 list of dead-end military projects.

ApacheCoTodd said:

My issue? I have zero trust in "military trials" accepting weapons systems on a level ultimately deemed beneficial to the troop. Politicians, manufacturers, beltway thieves, lobbyists and the like end up the winners.

I've personally seen this movie too many times and whenever new&improved comes along there is almost certainly a learning curve borne on the backs and graves of Soldiers and Marines.

Talking about ground-up re-envisioning of a battle rifle gives me the heebie-jeebies and I have NO tolerance for it.

Once these asinine projects get their own momentum going and belt-way bandits start seeing dollar signs, they are very hard to stop regardless facts and real world experience.

I couldn't give two rats' patooties what the civilians want or will accept. THAT is *market rules*. However, when it comes to Service Members' lives, I am completely unwavering in noting the factual results of pie-in-the-sky projects like this.

While one side of this debate is clearly partisan for the round for the round's sake or perhaps even Sig's sake, I stand foursquare against supporting engineers' flights of fancy at the expense of combat effectiveness and Service Members' lives.

No sir, when it comes to trying to underwrite this boondoggle with defense dollars and Troops' blood, I call all involved for the currs they likely are or at least will be proven out to be.

Todd.

Click to expand...

I've played the military development and acquisition game a few times as well, sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes outside interests stack the deck, sometimes they aren't able to. One thing I definitely trust less than the development process is the random assumptions and apocalyptic hand waving of Internet people who aren't read into the program, and have no idea what the requirements, test process or results thus far look like. Sure, change always carries risk of failure, but fear based stagnation carries certainly of eventual failure. If everyone shared the mindset highlighted in your post, we'd still still have front stuffers on horseback instead of the most technologically advanced and dominant conventional force on the face of the planet.

someguy2800 said:

I get where you are coming from but somehow we managed to make it from trapdoor springfields to M4 carbines, so perhaps they are not as stupid and inept as they seem. The world will continue to progress even if we do not so I am all for finding the most effective technology available. Sometimes these projects work, sometimes they don't, but we will never know if we don't try.

Click to expand...

They absolutely ARE that stupid and greedy.
They queered effectiveness and combat survivability on at least;
KRAG
1903
Garand
M-16
M-9...
To name but a few.
Each of these was presented in one configuration or other until the geniuses got involved answering questions no one asked and each resulted in failures and direct adverse effect on Service Members.

Todd.

Texas10mm said:

The AR platform is long in the tooth and IMHO an experiment that's gone on far too long. We've gone from a rifle with a 20" barrel shooting a 55 gr bullet to a 14.5" barrel shooting a 62 gr bullet at a MUCH higher chamber pressure. We've gone from a rifle length gas system to a much shorter gas system. All this contributes to higher parts failure rate.

Much of this change is an attempt to change the color of the lipstick on the pig. The 5.56x45 was a poor choice for a military cartridge. Sure, you can carry more ammo, but the lethality of that ammo is greatly reduced. A rifle that craps where it eats isn't ideal.

Big Army is always planning to fight the last war. The current war, the longest in US history, shows no chance of ending soon. In actuality it's two wars, one part consisted of a lot of urban warfare, the other part in very open terrain where we were outgunned in many cases. Big Army has chosen to gear up for the second part.

In all truth there is NO one size fits all combat solution. The US has no general issue subgun in the inventory. It's something that's clearly needed for urban combat. For combat in more open areas we need a cartridge with longer legs.

Both cases can be done on a common lower. Just change the upper and maybe the mags. IMHO the .300 BLK, or something similar, would be an ideal cartridge for urban combat. It does well with shorter barrels and loading it with a midweight bullet would give it a lot of punch at close range.

We desperately need a ground up new design.

Click to expand...

And, Ironically, in my combat experience, the M-16A2 with a removable carry handle shooting m855 is arguably the finest battle rifle that I've used. Though, apples and oranges, a Metric FAL is up there with it.

Now, to outline my experience, My entire career in the Army was in Special Forces and if I did not deal with every modern and somewhat earlier Service Rifle out there - I don't know what it might be. And this isn't just taking them to the range for plinking but rather, actually training and using them in host-nations where they are fielded.

My experience also includes the development and fielding of weapons and communications systems before retiring and manufacturing after retiring.

I'm telling y'all, projects like this scare me to hell once the momentum gets rolling. Once that happens, unless the cult of engineers and profiteers are distracted elsewhere - disaster ensues.

I'm not afraid of *new* in any way whatsoever but ALL the hallmarks are here for those with the experience to see them for a train-wreck of the proportions of the earliest M-16 nightmares. Great concept corrupted by the peevish, the petty, the profiteers and the engineers, armchair or otherwise.

In any case, I've said my piece about how I feel about this boondoggle and potential Military application and will merely spectate from this point forward.

Todd.

I would rather see it in a 6mm with a high BC bullet but I like to see that they are pushing the envelope.

Slater said:

If I'm understanding correctly, this round hasn't been officially accepted by the military yet. It's still in the trials phase and in competition with other designs. So it may hit the gunstore shelves before the military adopts it (if at all).

Click to expand...

It will for certain be hitting the shelves before the military makes a decision. It’s supposed to be available commercially in the next few months but the military is going to make a decision on it till like 2022 I think I read. The two cartridges it’s competing with are polymer cased.

270 WSM. thats my 277 Fury. Havent bumped up my game to 270 WBY yet....but there is the 6.5 RPM

So we have yet another over-powered 7mm that will be used in a super-sonic suppressed rifle.
The multi-metal cartridge would be a nightmare in the field - add a bit of salt water or human sweat and you could use it as a battery.
Talk about corrosion problems!

theotherwaldo said:

So we have yet another over-powered 7mm that will be used in a super-sonic suppressed rifle.
The multi-metal cartridge would be a nightmare in the field - add a bit of salt water or human sweat and you could use it as a battery.
Talk about corrosion problems!

Click to expand...

Galvanic corrosion is no big secret, you don't think they might have considered it in the design and countered it with coatings or insulating films.

The thing that kills me about these threads, is folks read a product announcement blip and then automatically assume that the tens or hundreds of people involved with the creation of the product were all clueless as to the BASIC engineering issues concerning its development. What's it like to assume that everyone in the world but you is either a moron or involved in some grand conspiracy?

It's one thing to wait and see how something shakes out, it's quite another thing to pronounce a laundry list of engineering mistakes that would border on negligence, based on no information at all.

Gtscotty said:

What's it like to assume that everyone in the world but you is a moron?

Click to expand...

In engineering, product development or marketing for military contracts?
I'd feel like I'm usually right.

theotherwaldo said:

In engineering, product development or marketing for military contracts?
I'd feel like I'm usually right.

Click to expand...

Everyone usually does, but what are your feelings based on? Do you have any of the inside knowledge on this design, or the relevant specs that would be required to make an actual engineering assessment? You don't think corrosion requirements or testing were specified in this program? That would be a first in my experience. Feelings, even strong feelings, do not, the truth, make.

And the truth is none of us know enough about this product at this point to make a prognostication on here that's worth the electrons it inconveniences.

This looks like yet another weapon system that would work under white-glove laboratory conditions when in the hands of experts.

The last time I saw a weapon system that had this many obvious flaws, it was eventually improved by being replaced by a lump of concrete.

ApacheCoTodd said:

And, Ironically, in my combat experience, the M-16A2 with a removable carry handle shooting m855 is arguably the finest battle rifle that I've used. Though, apples and oranges, a Metric FAL is up there with it.

Todd.

Click to expand...

20" barrel, rifle length gas system and 55 gr bullets. As it was designed. A decent rifle cartridge configuration for some situations.

I'm still a fan of bigger is better. For many years the .223 wasn't legal for deer in many states, in some states where the deer run a bit larger it's still not legal.

Texas10mm said:

20" barrel, rifle length gas system and 55 gr bullets. As it was designed. A decent rifle cartridge configuration for some situations.

I'm still a fan of bigger is better. For many years the .223 wasn't legal for deer in many states, in some states where the deer run a bit larger it's still not legal.

Click to expand...

The 55 gr is why I specified the 62gr m855 with 1:7. Once we got those and PARTICULARLY with the Hensoldt 4x scopes made them a solid 600+ meter set-up.

Todd.

This video shows some details on the Fury's hybrid case.