WidenersTitan ReloadingInline FabricationRotoMetals2
Snyders JerkyLoad DataMidSouth Shooters SupplyLee Precision
Repackbox
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 76

Thread: Next Generation Squad Weapon and optic exceed paratrooper expectations

  1. #41
    Boolit Mold ttd444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Posts
    26
    what is needed is to defeat body armor out to 600 meters. a 5.56 cannot do that, but a 6.8x51 can. most other armies will give the soldiers class 4 body armor, which stops a 5.56 round. China know this and they don't have round or a rifle that will penetrate body armor. we do.






  2. #42
    Boolit Mold ttd444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Posts
    26



  3. #43
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Mansfield, PA
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by anothernewb View Post
    So... kind of like when the military spent hundreds of millions on a new more accurate firearm only to discover mounting an optic to an existing firearm increased it's accuracy. After spending millions once again, They rediscovered that a larger bullet has more force. Brilliant!
    another,
    The Military "Intelligence" has always been geared up to fight the LAST War. Most soldiers today could not hit their foot. The .303 British Round soldiered on for 45 Years after 1913 because it was good enough for the Tommy.

    What is the Need (?) for any new caliber in the 21st Century when most soldiers have never fired a gun until they entered service. Eight or 10 weeks of "training" will not make a rifleman.

    In the next war drones will sweep the field and the military-industrial complex expensive arms will not make much difference. Amen.

    Adam

  4. #44
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,675
    I fail to understand how gearing up to deal with the newly emerging proliferation of body armor is fighting the LAST war???????????

    Boots on the ground will be needed for the foreseeable future.

    Russian jamming leaves some high-tech U.S. weapons ineffective in Ukraine
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...Y0FEl2Dd6yKbwp
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 05-24-2024 at 06:00 PM.
    2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point."
    – Amber Veal

    "The Highest form of ignorance is when your reject something you don't know anything about".
    - Wayne Dyer

  5. #45
    Boolit Buddy HumptyDumpty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    342
    My problems with 277 Fury, are that it really doesn't save much weight or size vs 308, and it requires insane pressure to defeat level IV. I'd prefer something closer to a modernized 280 British, with the latest-and-greatest in AP projectiles. Level IV, particularly ceramic, becomes compromised with repeated hits. I've done some testing with B32 APIs, as well as tungsten-core 308. Even from an 18 inch barrel, each round ruined a large section of the plate, and ceramic shrapnel went flying. Anybody who has to endure more than a single hit from a reasonably potent cartridge, is in serious danger. So, shoot until the threat is eliminated.

  6. #46
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,675
    The .270 Winchester was developed by Winchester in 1923, and it was released in in 1925. It is a 65K cartridge. The 6.8x51 is 80K. Technology and metallurgy have came a long way in the last 100 years. A 23% increase in max pressure over the last 100 years is hardly an insane pressure increase IMHO.

    In 1924 I am not sure what the highest-pressure revolver cartridge was but 23K is the highest I am aware of, yet today we have 65K revolver cartridges??
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 05-24-2024 at 09:43 PM.
    2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point."
    – Amber Veal

    "The Highest form of ignorance is when your reject something you don't know anything about".
    - Wayne Dyer

  7. #47
    Boolit Buddy HumptyDumpty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Tecs View Post
    The .270 Winchester was developed by Winchester in 1923, and it was released in in 1925. It is a 65K cartridge. The 6.8x51 is 80K. Technology and metallurgy have came a long way in the last 100 years. A 23% increase in max pressure over the last 100 years is hardly an insane pressure increase IMHO.

    In 1924 I am not sure what the highest-pressure revolver cartridge was but 23K is the highest I am aware of, yet today we have 65K revolver cartridges??
    So what happens when you get a little bit of bullet set-back, crap in your barrel, or a production lot with a slight overcharge? How about hot environments and varying atmospheric conditions? We're talking about mass production and use in combat; things happen. Spiking from 80k to 100k+ is not at all implausible. I also don't believe for one second, that those rifles aren't going to suffer significantly accelerated erosion of their chambers and bores. And, after all that, how confident are we that first-shot penetration will be achieved, beyond bad-breath distances? Armor has a habit of improving, shot angles and distances vary, etc.

  8. #48
    Boolit Mold ttd444's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Posts
    26
    in the case of armor vs weapon, weapon always wins. it might take them several years to defeat armor, but the weapon always wins.

    its 10,000 rounds spent until you change the barrel on the M4 and M7 (Spear). in the Army, training rounds (most likely 113gr FMJ) are around 65,000psi. in war, the armor penetrator rounds are 80,000psi.


    i used to be in Army and i trained on M16A2. the 5.56 was a good cartridge, but in this day and age, the 5.56 is like taking a squirt gun to battle well armored troops. the 5.56 has what, 50 or 60 year run and it is not like the government to hurry up and throw the 5.56 away. it will take 10 or 15 years to make the 5.56 obsolete in the Army. Marines, Air Force and Navy are next. add to the fact, the 6.8x51 is for front line troops only. support troops are still sticking with the 5.56.

  9. #49
    Boolit Master armoredman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Casa Grande, AZ
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Helmer View Post
    elm,
    Plinking is a fun way to spend a summer afternoon, but in the real world, some of us prefer a REAL gun! I think many folks in love with the 5.56MM do not realize it is NOT legal for big game in many states. I had three wonderful issued M-14s in the past. I refuse to consider a plastic Matel toy being thought to be anything more than a kid's plinking arm!

    Be well.

    Adam
    Interesting. Any centerfire rifle is legal for big game in AZ. I can ever take big game with a black powder pistol, if I am truly insane. BTW, we also don't have magazine limits, so I can hunt with my AR with a full 30 round mag, if I choose. I don't, but it's an option.
    I had an M-14 in the Navy, but only because the 7.62x51 round was better at throwing a line. I can also attest that the only person I saw who could control an M-14 on full auto was a sailor who was an ex professional wrestler in Mexico, as wide as he was tall. That was probably why almost all of our M-14s were semi auto only, save for three select fire examples.
    You may consider the M4/M16 rifles to be kids plinkers, but professional armies have been using the rifle/round to good effect all over the world. How many army's in todays world still use 7.62x51 NATO as a standard arm? Not trying to be a jerk, genuinely curious. I think some Third World armies still use the FN FAL. or the G3.
    I mean to point out that what you think is not what the worlds armies think, and some of them have a few years of combat experience.
    Normally I would say go ahead, replace the round, because we could see a TON of cheap surplus on the market, realistically I would expect any ammo not allocated to reserve status would be donated to allies or Ukraine.

  10. #50
    Boolit Grand Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    21,393
    armoredman

    I've seen lots of Soldiers who could effectively fire the M14s and M14E1/A1s on full auto quite well including myself. But then I wasn't a wrestler but was a well trained Soldier and I only weighed 150 back then. It's a matter of training and I doubt Sailers aren't that well trained on weapons (SEAL being the exception.....sometimes....). Having actually used both cartridges, among several others, in combat I can say from experience I never had to shoot more than once with 7.62 NATO to get the job done vs 2 -3 rounds sometimes with the 5.56. Also, what is "cover" to 5.56 is most often only "concealment" to 7.62 which is/was an often overlooked factor in combat.

    BTW; many M14s were put back into service in the last 20 year war because the 5.56 lacked the range and effectiveness in many situations. Also, all of our GP machineguns are chambered in 7.62 NATO along with most of our NATO allies. Additionally, the majority of our sniper rifles and many of our squad level marksman rifles are also chambered in 7.62 NATO.

    As an old infantryman and SF weapons NCO, we used to have a saying plagiarizing the old American Express credit card commercial; "7.62 NATO, better than Master Card and VISA, accepted worldwide....never leave home without it....."
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  11. #51
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,675
    I've never been properly trained on M-14 FA. I have fired them a few times FA. Even untrained short burst was surprisingly controllable for me for aimed fire. With a full mag dump not so much compared to an M-60, M-16 or a Thompson.

    While the 6.8 SPC and the 6.8x51 are much different cartridges the history of the development of the 6.8 SPC is a testament to the 5.56 effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in combat. The 6.8 was developed by a couple of people at the AMU mostly with their own money and time to improve the performance of the M-16 platform. Not sure that has ever happened that way before.
    2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point."
    – Amber Veal

    "The Highest form of ignorance is when your reject something you don't know anything about".
    - Wayne Dyer

  12. #52
    Boolit Grand Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    21,393
    M-Tecs

    None of those weapons [M60 with one exception] were ever intended for a "full mag dump". That's pure Hollywood..... They all were intended, when on FA, to be fired with 2-3 round bursts. The M60 with 6-10 round bursts and a "belt dump" only when the FLPF [Final Line of Protective Fire] is fired. Even with that said, the M14A1 is quite controllable with a full mag dump because of its stock design and weight. That is especially true from the prone position although even so from a standing "assault" position. Again, simply a matter of correct training.

    With that said let me say a "mag dump" is not a very wise thing to do, especially in a tactical situation. While you're dumping 20-30 rounds at one or two miscreants other miscreants may be zeroing in on you. Two to three rounds then move on to the next target and maintain situational awareness and not having an empty weapon. However, with 7.62 NATO more than one round isn't necessary per single miscreant. Thus, no need for a "mag dump".

    BTW; I'm not criticizing the new weapon or cartridge and it's selection at all as I see and understand the need for it.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  13. #53
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Mansfield, PA
    Posts
    789
    Larry,

    Well said! You said what I thought better than I could and I hate to type. LOL. You should be writing a regular column in a gun magazine. I read all your stuff.
    Be well.
    Adam

  14. #54
    Boolit Master armoredman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Casa Grande, AZ
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
    armoredman

    I've seen lots of Soldiers who could effectively fire the M14s and M14E1/A1s on full auto quite well including myself. But then I wasn't a wrestler but was a well trained Soldier and I only weighed 150 back then. It's a matter of training and I doubt Sailers aren't that well trained on weapons (SEAL being the exception.....sometimes....). Having actually used both cartridges, among several others, in combat I can say from experience I never had to shoot more than once with 7.62 NATO to get the job done vs 2 -3 rounds sometimes with the 5.56. Also, what is "cover" to 5.56 is most often only "concealment" to 7.62 which is/was an often overlooked factor in combat.

    BTW; many M14s were put back into service in the last 20 year war because the 5.56 lacked the range and effectiveness in many situations. Also, all of our GP machineguns are chambered in 7.62 NATO along with most of our NATO allies. Additionally, the majority of our sniper rifles and many of our squad level marksman rifles are also chambered in 7.62 NATO.

    As an old infantryman and SF weapons NCO, we used to have a saying plagiarizing the old American Express credit card commercial; "7.62 NATO, better than Master Card and VISA, accepted worldwide....never leave home without it....."
    You might be wrong, too. However, we'll let it go for now, enjoy your day.

  15. #55
    Boolit Master deces's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    noyb
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobade View Post
    I am sure lobbying had a lot more to do with this decision than performance or practicality. When you are the only one making the guns and the ammo, you have an interest in it being adopted.

    I'm just wondering how long a self loading rifle running at 80K PSI is going to last. I guess we'll get to see.
    It's going to work out about as well as the military's boondoggled lol rail gun.
    These men and their hypnotized followers call this a new order. It is not new. It is not order.

  16. #56
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
    M-Tecs

    None of those weapons [M60 with one exception] were ever intended for a "full mag dump". That's pure Hollywood..... They all were intended, when on FA, to be fired with 2-3 round bursts. The M60 with 6-10 round bursts and a "belt dump" only when the FLPF [Final Line of Protective Fire] is fired. Even with that said, the M14A1 is quite controllable with a full mag dump because of its stock design and weight. That is especially true from the prone position although even so from a standing "assault" position. Again, simply a matter of correct training.

    With that said let me say a "mag dump" is not a very wise thing to do, especially in a tactical situation. While you're dumping 20-30 rounds at one or two miscreants other miscreants may be zeroing in on you. Two to three rounds then move on to the next target and maintain situational awareness and not having an empty weapon. However, with 7.62 NATO more than one round isn't necessary per single miscreant. Thus, no need for a "mag dump".

    BTW; I'm not criticizing the new weapon or cartridge and it's selection at all as I see and understand the need for it.
    Agreed. Like most, I have never been the pointy end of the spear, so my FA experience was solely for fun with the exception of the M-60. I did train minimally on the M-60 in prep of competition at the Winston P. Wilson Championship competition.

    My dad was in the Navy in WII but had never fired FA. I arranged for him to shoot FA with the M-60 and M-16. He was 78 at the time. He didn't think he would enjoy FA since it was a waste of ammo. Afterwards he said that was the most fun he had with his clothes on.

    One other time I had two M-16's for the Marksmanship team that needed new barrels. I let my friends and fellow High Power competitors that I would have 2 M-16's available for FA at the end of the match on Sat. I also let anyone else that had ammo shoot them. We fired around 3,000 rounds in a very short time period. Almost all were full mag dumps. Fun was had by all.

    On a serious note, it's very impressive what a good M-60 team can do at 600 yards. I knew they could be deadly but I had no idea how deadly they couple be. I can't image assaulting a Germany pill box without armor support, yet friends of my dad did that many times.
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 05-27-2024 at 11:10 PM.
    2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point."
    – Amber Veal

    "The Highest form of ignorance is when your reject something you don't know anything about".
    - Wayne Dyer

  17. #57
    Boolit Buddy davidheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    US
    Posts
    489
    I just hope everybody realizes the 277 Fury in a 16 inch barrel is a 270 winchester in a 22-24 inch barrel..... and I for one think that's awesome.

    I'm certainly glad to hear about it and welcome the .277 Fury.... but I am curious how current bolt action rifles would work for it in the civilian market or even for sniper applications. Furthermore... will 80k psi be a handmade proposition? The rifle is set to be released in 2033. A lot could happen in the course of nearly 10 years... like a World War 3. We'll see what happens. In the meantime I'm happy with my supressed 18" 308 and 22" 270win rifles.

    Here's an article regarding barrel life. It'll be many years before I see myself gearing up to reload 277 Fury, but after NATO adoption I'll jump on board.

    https://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com/bl...3m4i0tklo50l2y
    He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. -Psalm 91:1

  18. #58
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,675
    Quote Originally Posted by davidheart View Post
    I just hope everybody realizes the 277 Fury in a 16 inch barrel is a 270 winchester in a 22-24 inch barrel..... and I for one think that's awesome.

    I'm certainly glad to hear about it and welcome the .277 Fury.... but I am curious how current bolt action rifles would work for it in the civilian market or even for sniper applications. Furthermore... will 80k psi be a handmade proposition? The rifle is set to be released in 2033. A lot could happen in the course of nearly 10 years... like a World War 3. We'll see what happens. In the meantime I'm happy with my supressed 18" 308 and 22" 270win rifles.

    Here's an article regarding barrel life. It'll be many years before I see myself gearing up to reload 277 Fury, but after NATO adoption I'll jump on board.

    https://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com/bl...3m4i0tklo50l2y
    Per claims from Sig and contract requirements barrel life will be the same or better than the current M-4 system M240 systems due to different steels and treatments. I had the specs posted in a thread that disappeared.

    The Sig Cross bolt 277 Fury was the first of the boltguns. It will not be the last. Not sure if the high pressure 277 Fury rounds are available to the public yet? The standard brass head 277 Fury are 65K.

    The only reason the 65K max has been standard for the past 100 years is limits of the brass case head particularly the primer pocket. In actions designed for the 277 Fury the pressure is not even remotely a concern. Older designs may not be up to the bolt thrust and barrel shank size requirements.

    In the mid 90's the AMU loaded 80 grain Sierra Matchking bullets for their V-8 load for long range M-16 service rifle completions. Per pressure testing they were 77,000k to 78,000K. They used new LC crimped brass. The primer pockets were toast after the fire firing.

    The ELR folks have been using loads well above 65K for a long time. Even the ones that are staying in the 65K range may have to use action with more lug contact due to the increased bolt thrust from the large case heads they are using.
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 05-27-2024 at 09:49 PM.
    2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    "Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not, there’s absolutely no point."
    – Amber Veal

    "The Highest form of ignorance is when your reject something you don't know anything about".
    - Wayne Dyer

  19. #59
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Rice Lake WI
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by davidheart View Post
    I just hope everybody realizes the 277 Fury in a 16 inch barrel is a 270 winchester in a 22-24 inch barrel..... and I for one think that's awesome.

    I'm certainly glad to hear about it and welcome the .277 Fury.... but I am curious how current bolt action rifles would work for it in the civilian market or even for sniper applications. Furthermore... will 80k psi be a handmade proposition? The rifle is set to be released in 2033. A lot could happen in the course of nearly 10 years... like a World War 3. We'll see what happens. In the meantime I'm happy with my supressed 18" 308 and 22" 270win rifles.

    Here's an article regarding barrel life. It'll be many years before I see myself gearing up to reload 277 Fury, but after NATO adoption I'll jump on board.

    https://www.ronspomeroutdoors.com/bl...3m4i0tklo50l2y
    A company makes Brass for 308win that can be loaded to 100,000 psi ultimatereloader did a test of the brass a few months ago.

    The more I learn about things the more I see the potential for this one to be a huge failure, one of SIGs newest guns has documented issues with the barrel being able to be shifted by hand in the reciver enough to change the point of impact, as well as documented quality issues with the military issue pistol a police department got..
    I could see this gun potentially suffering a lot of sheared locking lugs in service. I do hope this hun was tested with a oiled cartridge at proof pressure, because I know for a fact these rifles will see a fair number of CLP oiled cartridges

  20. #60
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Mansfield, PA
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanJames170 View Post
    A company makes Brass for 308win that can be loaded to 100,000 psi ultimatereloader did a test of the brass a few months ago.

    The more I learn about things the more I see the potential for this one to be a huge failure, one of SIGs newest guns has documented issues with the barrel being able to be shifted by hand in the reciver enough to change the point of impact, as well as documented quality issues with the military issue pistol a police department got..
    I could see this gun potentially suffering a lot of sheared locking lugs in service. I do hope this hun was tested with a oiled cartridge at proof pressure, because I know for a fact these rifles will see a fair number of CLP oiled cartridges
    Ryan

    In the next war, a $10,000 rifle and scope for each soldier is not realistic. As I posted before, in 1913 the Brits wanted to drop the rimmed .303 for a new rifle and cartridge. WWI interfered and the .303 soldiered on. In the 1930s, the Brits developed the No. 4, Mk1 and the .303 soldiered on until 1957.

    The average soldier is not a rifleman, so why equip each so? If the enemy is using body armor, go for head shots! LOL.

    Rifles, of any caliber, may not be the deciding factor in our next war. Armed drones will "seek and destroy" long before the Mattel 16, .308 or the new rifles comes into play. Whatever. Idle thoughts of an old farmer.
    Be well.
    Adam

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check