Will .277 Sig Fury/6.8x51mm catch on?

[Hunter 08]

Why didn't the Remington 6.8mm SPC take off?

It had a major manufacturer, as well as the magazines behind it...

I guess the answers would be similar (?).

I think it had more to do with lack of advertising and the fact that the military didn't pick it up as a 5.56 replacement. Kind of why 6.5 Creedmoor has taken off, it has the advertising for people to buy it.

I really wanted to see 6.8 SPC-II succeed. And it may make a resurgence, I mean look how long 6.5 Grendel took to actually get something of a following? Being that Fury is mainly a AR-10 designed cartridge it might not take off for a while. More than a handful of companies need to make rifles at the same time, ammo makers need to come out with options for hunters and target shooters. They claim 6.8 Fury has less bullet drop at 1000 yards than 6.5 Creedmoor, I'd like to see that myself.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

I get your point, but that is a VERY DANGEROUS idea. What's to stop a person from buying the hybrid cased 80k psi cartridges and touching them off in the "all brass non-hybrid" version?

Unless you are referring to them making a case that will not chamber a hybrid case, then that's perfectly safe, but at the same time doesn't provide the benefits of utilizing a potential surplus ammo source of hybrid cases.

The 300 RUM power levels were all under SAAMI specs for the 300 RUM so even the highest power rating was safe to shoot in any SAAMI Spec'd 300 RUM chamber.

I'm referring to them making guns that can handle the top power, but offering cheaper and less power "standard" rounds that don't require complex hybrid case.

Just like 300 RUM, you can go nuclear or downgraded.

Not downgraded and then risk life and limb for nuclear.

 

[JShirley]

Why didn't the Remington 6.8mm SPC take off?

It had a major manufacturer, as well as the magazines behind it...

I guess the answers would be similar (?).

A bit different, I think.

6.8 SPC is a reduced power .270 for AR15s. The .277 Fury is a .270 short magnum meant for short barrels. It's "battle rifle plus" power, while 6.8 SPC is "battle rifle lite". The 6.8 SPC is a better deer/midsize game cartridge than 5.56x45, and coincidentally better at stopping other midsize targets out to 400 meters. The .277 Fury has almost exactly 7mm Remington Magnum power, only in a short barreled format.

So....277 Fury should be a good choice for anything in North American other than large dangerous game (bison, moose and the big bears). Light bullets for distance game like pronghorn. A bit more than needed for deer. Perfect for elk, with good bullets and placement. Again, for most of us, it's just redundant, and probably higher cost than benefit.

John

 

[The Glockodile]

The .277 Fury has almost exactly 7mm Remington Magnum power, only in a short barreled format.

My ears!!!

...I imagine.

 

[Hunter 08]

Well they have designed it to be ran with a suppressor, so that will take some of the bite out of it. But I wonder how the recoil is on it. If the US military has all but adopted it at this point (please correct me if I'm wrong), recoil would not be much worse than 5.56mm is.

 

[JShirley]

Well they have designed it to be ran with a suppressor, so that will take some of the bite out of it. But I wonder how the recoil is on it. If the US military has all but adopted it at this point (please correct me if I'm wrong), recoil would not be much worse than 5.56mm is.

@Hunter 08 with the jokes.

Yes, I'm sure a super high pressure 7mm magnum-level cartridge won't have much recoil. At. All.

It's probably more accurate to note that this cartridge and rifle combination are part of a proposal to meet an Army need. As Sig notes, part of the requirement is the ability to produce the needed ammunition, that meets the specifications, in the needed quantities.

Maybe you thought this was for a general issue rifle? It's actually for a squad weapon. So, even if the Army officially picks it up, at most, 2 people per squad (SDM and automatic rifleman) would have it. Just as 7.62x51mm weapons are typically used today, in either a precision format, or squad support role

John

 

[mshootnit]

I wonder if they'll come out with "all brass non-hybrid" versions with less pressure for civilian sales as well. Be similar to 7mm-08 I bet.

But sure if that's commercially viable and worth it, but it may make it more popular if that's SIG's long term goal. Make it cheaper to catch on and get rifle manufacturers onboard.

Will still need some tough actions for full power though.

Kinda like what Remington did with 300 RUM with 3 different power levels.

I dunno. Full 80,000 psi will be a brutal hunting round for the ears unsuppressed.

If they did come out with an all brass version at around 60,000 psi, what kind of performance are we talking about?

 

[Dr T]

Well, .50 BMG is available commercially. But I really can't imagine a scenario that I would find myself in that either that or the 6.8 Fury a first choice. At best it looks like a very small collector and wannabe niche to me.

And something about proposals for the DoD: I know that back in the 90's every DARPA RFP that I saw had a requirement at a civilian use for the technology had to exist for the development requested. This sounds like the same sort of thing to me.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have read that Beretta is in cahoots with True Velocity for a commercial version of the plastic cased 6.8.

I figure that and the Sig Spear are efforts to recoup some of their development time and money when the Army says "just kidding."

I doubt Gendye is up to commercializing the telescoped round, though.

 

[JShirley]

If they did come out with an all brass version at around 60,000 psi, what kind of performance are we talking about?

I think that would negate the whole point of the round, dropping it to mere .308-level power. And then, folks could just use .308.

 

[someguy2800]

If they did come out with an all brass version at around 60,000 psi, what kind of performance are we talking about?

halfway between 7-08 and 260 rem

 

[The Glockodile]

Yes, I'm sure a super high pressure 7mm magnum-level cartridge won't have much recoil.

That's a lot of energy to be handled by a rather light package...

Adding a suppressor to it?

A lot of wear and tear.

 

[someguy2800]

To the guys worried about muzzle blast, that is a miss understanding of internal ballistics. Obviously I don’t have the actual engineering test data but this is what I would expect the pressure curves of a 6.8x51 and a 7mm magnum to look like if you put a pressure transducer in both.

In order to get the pressure up that high in the 6.8 with only 45 grains of powder space you will have to use a very fast burning powder, faster than you would typically use in a 7-08 for example. This fast burn rate will mean the pressure will spike up very fast but it will also taper off quicker as the bullet travels down the barrel. A 7mm mag on the other hand has 75 or so grains worth of powder to work with so it can use a much slower burning propellant and maintain the pressure much longer.

What matters to your ear is what the pressure is when the bullet leaves the muzzle and how much gas is exiting to create a pressure wave to reach your ear. So if you are concerned about muzzle blast you should be way more turned off by the 75 grains of powder gas leaving the muzzle of a 7mm mag at a much higher pressure than the 45 grains of gas leaving the 6.8x51 muzzle.

 

[someguy2800]

That's a lot of energy to be handled by a rather light package...

Adding a suppressor to it?

A lot of wear and tear.

Wear and tear is good. It means the government can give more of your money to someone for replacement parts and nobody loves finding something to do with your money like the government.

 

[JDeere]

Another marketing gimmick imo. I have a 7.62 AR10 and that's all I need. I used it for hunting a long time ago. I developed some very accurate loads with hunting bullets but got tired of lugging that heavy thing around.

 

[JShirley]

To the guys worried about muzzle blast, that is a miss understanding of internal ballistics... So if you are concerned about muzzle blast you should be way more turned off by the 75 grains of powder gas leaving the muzzle of a 7mm mag at a much higher pressure than the 45 grains of gas leaving the 6.8x51 muzzle.

View attachment 1054615

Or, maybe, some of us have had a lot of experience firing guns of 60mm and up. And hate muzzle blast. That 7mm barrel is going to be 10" further away from my face. That matters. Since I can't guarantee that I'll be able to get a 7mm suppressor anytime soon, if I had the funds to get one of these, I damn sure wouldn't want a 16" barrel on it, even less than the 16" barrel .308s that I also don't want.

John

 

[someguy2800]

Or, maybe, some of us have had a lot of experience firing guns of 60mm and up. And hate muzzle blast. That 7mm barrel is going to be 10" further away from my face. That matters. Since I can't guarantee that I'll be able to get a 7mm suppressor anytime soon, if I had the funds to get one of these, I damn sure wouldn't want a 16" barrel on it, even less than the 16" barrel .308s that I also don't want.

John

Who said it has to have a 16" barrel? Get it with the same barrel length you would get whatever other cartridge you want to compare it with. Or don't. Just wanted to explain that if you dislike muzzle blast then this is a pro, not a con.

 

[JShirley]

Who said it has to have a 16" barrel? Get it with the same barrel length you would get whatever other cartridge you want to compare it with..

Sure. Just explain where those can be had.

 

[Hunter 08]

Who said it has to have a 16" barrel? Get it with the same barrel length you would get whatever other cartridge you want to compare it with. Or don't. Just wanted to explain that if you dislike muzzle blast then this is a pro, not a con.

They are saying the minimal optimal barrel for .277 is a 16".

 

[someguy2800]

Sure. Just explain where those can be had.

There isn't one in any barrel length for sale right now so I think its a bit premature to assume 16" will be the only barrel length. I agree that a 16" will likely be downright obnoxious, but so is every other high power rifle cartridge with a 16" barrel.

They are saying the minimal optimal barrel for .277 is a 16".

Key word is Minimal. 223 also works pretty well in a 16" barrel but you can buy a 30" if you so wish. I don't see any reason why if this ends up being sold in other rifles that they would not offer it in the same 22-24" barrel lengths that are typical in modern bolt actions. They will happily make whatever they think you will buy and won't get them in a law suit.

 

[Hunter 08]

According the SAAMI, 16" barrel for .277 Fury gets you the 3000fps velocity for the round to work the best. Where the 5.56 really needs a 20" barrel to get you the desired results. At some point there is a part of diminishing returns where a longer barrel may even have an adverse affect of what you want.

 

[someguy2800]

According the SAAMI, 16" barrel for .277 Fury gets you the 3000fps velocity for the round to work the best. Where the 5.56 really needs a 20" barrel to get you the desired results. At some point there is a part of diminishing returns where a longer barrel may even have an adverse affect of what you want.

I doubt it is done accelerating at 16" completely but even if it was there is no reason you cannot make the barrel longer anyway. In the case of 5.56 22 and 24" is a very common barrel length and competitive shooters sometimes use as long as 30 or even 34". A 22lr stops accelerating around 12", but that doesn't stop rifle makers from making longer 22lr barrels either. I have a 24" long 22lr and it is an absolute pleasure to shoot because of the lower muzzle pressure.

 

[Hunter 08]

You're probably right. However, how many companies will go out of their way to make longer barrels when they know they can get away with a shorter barrel? It's like with say .30-30, technically 24" is the best barrel length to get what you want, but majority of the rifles sold are 20" length. Same goes for .308, optimal is about 24", most you find are 20 and 22 inch. 6.5 Creedmoor is a curious one where 20, 22, and 24 inch barrels don't really add much more for it.

If it wasn't for over all length and minimum length of firearm laws, I'm sure shorter barrels would be a lot more common, especially for those that want compact without having to get a take-down.

 

[JShirley]

There isn't one in any barrel length for sale right now so I think its a bit premature to assume 16" will be the only barrel length. I agree that a 16" will likely be downright obnoxious, but so is every other high power rifle cartridge with a 16" barrel.

The Sig Cross- the only semi-affordable .277 Fury on the market...has a 16" barrel. To return to my earlier point that IF the ammo was available and affordable, and IF the price for the platform dropped, I MIGHT be somewhat interested, if Sig offered it with a 19" barrel.

 

[someguy2800]

You're probably right. However, how many companies will go out of their way to make longer barrels when they know they can get away with a shorter barrel? It's like with say .30-30, technically 24" is the best barrel length to get what you want, but majority of the rifles sold are 20" length. Same goes for .308, optimal is about 24", most you find are 20 and 22 inch. 6.5 Creedmoor is a curious one where 20, 22, and 24 inch barrels don't really add much more for it.

If it wasn't for over all length and minimum length of firearm laws, I'm sure shorter barrels would be a lot more common, especially for those that want compact without having to get a take-down.

They are already doing it for many many calibers. They will make whatever they think you will buy. 30/30 doesn’t need a 24” or even 20” for that matter.