I came across this video discussing future military rounds. It doesn’t have anything to do with cast boolits, but I thought it might be of interest to some members.
https://youtu.be/48w6iktbrq4
Printable View
I came across this video discussing future military rounds. It doesn’t have anything to do with cast boolits, but I thought it might be of interest to some members.
https://youtu.be/48w6iktbrq4
The latest and greatest “future” military cartridge seems to be the 277 Fury being marketed by Sig.
It has a two piece construction, with a stainless steel head and a brass body. They claim to reach a service pressure of 80kpsi.
I’m waiting on it to get SAAMI approval before I get to interested in it.
Jay Andrew
www.theballisticassistant.com
I still want a .277 Wolverine.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
They have been screwing around with modern case less ammo for a very very long time now. Way back in the 60's HK was working on it to try and get NATO to adopt it and came out with rifles that had internals that looked like the inside of an expensive swiss watch. They have repeatedly ended up sticking with something that actually works. I wonder how many hundreds of millions the taxpayer has spent on it by now.
The 6.8 caseless is targeted at replacing an intermediate cartridge, like the 5.56. Which the .277fury is not. The .277 fury really is nothing innovative. I would like to see how long an SR25 pattern rifle would last with it because the limitation on those and many semi autos is not the pressure the case can withstand. As the military is finding out with the M855A1, high pressures has consequences.
I guess innovation is up to opinion. While there have been cases with steel heads, there hasn’t been a commercial offering of such a case. We will see what Sig is able to do with it, but being able to mass produce it in a way that is cost effective would be an innovation.Quote:
Originally Posted by dkf
They aren’t chambering conventional rifles for this cartridge, the one rifle they are offering is has an action that it’s pretty beefy. So it is likely any new semi auto platform would also need to be strengthened to deal with the higher pressures. It remains to be seen if the increase in muzzle velocity is enough of a benefit to offset a heavier rifle. Thats what military trials and civilian experience will determine.
Jay Andrew
www.theballisticassistant.com
As the video says, the government isn’t trying to lighten the load for the soldier, it’s trying to decrease the cost of transporting the ammunition to the battlefield. I hope they include improved performance too.
If they were that concerned about costs they would not be transitioning over to "green" lead free ammo which ends up costing quite a bit more per round. One way they try to justify the cost increase of "green" ammo is range cleanup. At the range I belong to they got a company to come in and dig up the berms and target clays fields to harvest the lead. It ended up the outfit paid the club to do it because the collected lead had scrap value. Any claimed cost savings will just be thrown away somewhere else, that is just how government works. It was not very long ago the dod was seeking bids for biodegradable bullets that planted flowers. Axe the goofs that came up with that idea and you can save some money right there.:groner:
It is an interesting cartridge. It will appeal to some but not to me.
Unless the military adopts it, it will be another whiz-bang in 10 years...maybe less. What will kill it is cost and only being available in a proprietary action. It offers a minimal gain over a .270 by using special powder. The only advantage.... it does it with a shorter barrel. For a hunting rifle, in a caliber meant for long range shooting, that seems like a poor trade off. But I should never underestimate the power of marketing and paying off gun writers...look at the success of the 6.5 CM. You would think the 6.5 was magic, but it offers .270 performance in a short action woo-hoo!!
I can purchase 5 Compass rifles for the cost of one of these. Or three of them and add the Boyds At-One stock.
I did not expect the 6.5CM to go as far as it has either. It fills a small niche in certain platforms with certain weight bullets but it is nothing awe inspiring really. But 10 years from now it may end up about dead. Over the years a lot of very good cartridges came and went, never gaining any real popularity.
The issue of shipping cost as a factor is interesting but find it hard to believe it a significant enough issue to drive all the expense involved. Curious to see how this works real world in automatic weapons in terms of barrel life and heat build up in the system, and the solutions. IF I read this correctly SIG is paying the freight on the R&D now but if adopted and US made think the cost of conversion of existing ammo lines will eat up savings in shipping cost for a long, long time.
From a military perspective, I would think having a common round across different platforms is important. Then you have the NATO compatibility issue.
For the grunt carrying ammo, He can carry more 5.56 so not seeing it being embraced as an infantry round to replace what we are using now.
I am not seeing it.
I can see how shipping can add up due to weight, because the military ends up flying a lot of the ammo into whatever country they are in. Does not matter so much stateside, but abroad yeah I can see it. You will end up hitting the payload weight capacity of the plane before the physical dimensional cargo capacity of the plane is reached with something like ammo. The thing is the DOD wastes so much money in other areas, not like the taxpayer is going to see that claimed money saved in shipping anyway. They will put that money somewhere else. And that is if the new ammo does not cost more than current ammo does.
The military seems to want to go with only one cartridge, we some of them anyway. The problem is there are too many scenarios where one cartridge is not good at all. I mean clearing buildings with a cartridge like 7.62x51 can be done but it is far from optimal, an intermediate cartridge like 5.56 is better for that. If you want to punch concrete blocks, punch through armor and shoot out to a mile you don't want a 7.62x51, you want something like a .50bmg for that. The military (mainly socom) has even gotten away from 7.62x51 for some applications, favoring .300winmag, .338lapua, .300norma, etc. Like I said, I don't see them going down to one or even two cartridges.
And that is not even considering NATO.(as previously mentioned) A lot of time and money has been spent to get NATO countries invested in certain standardized cartridges.
The way our relationship with NATO is deteriorating, by the time any wondrous new cartridge is ever adapted it may be a moot point and half of us will have passed over the hill by then anyway. GF
My ears hurt just thinking about it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Valornor
My understanding of the trials to replace the Beretta 92 is that the government's plan was to spend about $250 million dollars on pistols, but they spent over $500 million dollars just figuring out what that pistol was going to be. . .and ended up selecting the Sig P320 that was still in need of debugging at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by dkf
Having read up on various other U.S. ordnance boondoggles dating back to the time of George Washington, I consider the phrase "SELECTED BY THE U.S. MILITARY" as something to be pointed and laughed at as often as than taken as an endorsement.
They chose the P320 before they finished the required second round of testing. Small Arms Solutions on Youtube did a good video explaining the whole dog and pony show. I have noticed SIG and HK getting thrown a lot of contracts and corners being cut to favor them. I am sure some shenanigans are going on, usually is. I too think some people put too much faith in whatever the military selects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigslug
Robert McNamara
McNamara the bean counter that was responsible for the early problems with the m16 by refusing the extra cost of chrome plating the barrels. If I recall, the 6.8 SPC was supposed to be the latest, greatest military round.
why would the military be interested in a barrel burner that ran those kinds of pressures. Seems not only barrel life but the pounding a light weight gun would take at that level would make them short lived. Don't you find it ironic that we seem to allways be looking for a replacement for the 556 and Russia recently did field a new round and its closer to the 556 then anything else. Most of this is more for the walter middy civilian that wants to come across as a ballistics expert then the solder that actually has to kill people. In the last couple years ive hear there adopting the 6.5 creedmore, 6.5 Grendel, various 6.8s. 300 bo and other versions of it and a number of others. Guys even claiming the military already has them in the field. Ask someone that is actually fighting and they haven't seen a single one. Why? Because the gun they have now just plain works! Ill make a 2 for one bet with anyone here. My 50 bucks against your 25 that 10 years from now our infantry is still carrying M16s or some variation of it and its still chambered in 556.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valornor
Like LE is changing to 5-7. Or worse, 357 sig.
The military have been researching the caseless ammunition for decades now. There is a strong allure to it though. Less weight to carry, good energy delivery, etc. So they may one day pull it off too. But not anytime soon though. Daisy had come closest so far with their civilian .22 that used caseless ammunition. But they weren't a gun manufacturer and the Feds stopped them. Or we would have seen more guns that used caseless ammo. Daisy's caseless ammo wasn't waterproof and the ammo was a little on the fragile side if you tossed a handful into your pocket to carry on a long walk or hunt. But if you took care of it, it did work.
I suspect that something like a mini railgun system that can be carried by a solder will be the winner in the future. The bullets may wind up being more like needles with it, but launched at hyper velocities. But you could load up a thousand rounds in the magazine and carry a few more mags with you too.
This is a two piece case, not caseless. Past attempts have not been successful due to gas leakage at the junction point under high pressure and this is a really HIGH pressure round. A split in a brass case at this point is called a "K" split and will vent gas and likely damage the chamber and possibly the receiver and be dangerous for the shooter if not wearing safety glasses. Any venting of high temp gas at 80K PSI will certainly damage the chamber and possibly destroy the weapon and injure the shooter. Curious to see how this goes, not so much in thr R&D phase but in real world use.