Boy it's refreshing to read knowledgeable information from someone who knows what a cartridge is instead of a "caliber". Thank you Ulysses! I bet I know where you got your training.
The M4 is still based on the M16 though. It's basically a carbine version of the platform as I understand it.BassCowboy33 said:By the time I went in in '10, the M16 was already on the outs. I didn't even know it was still being used by any of the branches. The M4 carbine is the superior weapon.techno-ag said:
https://trendydigests.com/2024/04/25/the-dawn-of-the-xm7-u-s-armys-transition-from-the-legendary-m16-series/So it looks like a heavier caliber was the impetus behind this change. Better stopping power, better body armor penetration.Quote:
After over five decades of faithful service, the M16 series, an icon of American military might and a direct descendant of the AR-15 designed by Eugene Stoner will be succeeded by Sig Sauer's advanced XM7 rifle. The M16, first introduced in 1964, has been the most-produced 5.56x45mm weapon, marking a significant chapter in the annals of U.S. military history. The latest variant, the M16A4, known for its three-round burst feature, will soon yield to the cutting-edge design of the XM7, a testament to the relentless pursuit of small arms excellence.
…
Sig Sauer's XM7 and XM250 promise a significant capability increase over their predecessors, firing a common 6.8mm ammunition that delivers greater effectiveness against current and emergent threats. The new round, an intermediate caliber, outperforms both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm in terms of accuracy and power, especially at extended ranges - a critical factor in modern combat scenarios where adversaries have improved their body armor.
Looks like Sig is the main supplier of military handguns too. They replaced Beretta with the Sig M17 9mm.
Weapons procurement, at this level anyway, appears to be free of some of the turmoil we see elsewhere. Unless there's some political stuff not hitting the news. Any of you guys with military connections know anything?
techno-ag said:The M4 is still based on the M16 though. It's basically a carbine version of the platform as I understand it.BassCowboy33 said:By the time I went in in '10, the M16 was already on the outs. I didn't even know it was still being used by any of the branches. The M4 carbine is the superior weapon.techno-ag said:
https://trendydigests.com/2024/04/25/the-dawn-of-the-xm7-u-s-armys-transition-from-the-legendary-m16-series/So it looks like a heavier caliber was the impetus behind this change. Better stopping power, better body armor penetration.Quote:
After over five decades of faithful service, the M16 series, an icon of American military might and a direct descendant of the AR-15 designed by Eugene Stoner will be succeeded by Sig Sauer's advanced XM7 rifle. The M16, first introduced in 1964, has been the most-produced 5.56x45mm weapon, marking a significant chapter in the annals of U.S. military history. The latest variant, the M16A4, known for its three-round burst feature, will soon yield to the cutting-edge design of the XM7, a testament to the relentless pursuit of small arms excellence.
…
Sig Sauer's XM7 and XM250 promise a significant capability increase over their predecessors, firing a common 6.8mm ammunition that delivers greater effectiveness against current and emergent threats. The new round, an intermediate caliber, outperforms both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm in terms of accuracy and power, especially at extended ranges - a critical factor in modern combat scenarios where adversaries have improved their body armor.
Looks like Sig is the main supplier of military handguns too. They replaced Beretta with the Sig M17 9mm.
Weapons procurement, at this level anyway, appears to be free of some of the turmoil we see elsewhere. Unless there's some political stuff not hitting the news. Any of you guys with military connections know anything?
BurnetAggie99 said:
The real question is what do the Marines think of this rifle
WestTexAg12 said:BurnetAggie99 said:
The real question is what do the Marines think of this rifle
Marines won't get it until we get the Army's beat up nasty seconds. We're typically a few years behind emerging technology
I wonder if the Corps has the money or interest since it only completed fielding of the M27 a few years ago?WestTexAg12 said:BurnetAggie99 said:
The real question is what do the Marines think of this rifle
Marines won't get it until we get the Army's beat up nasty seconds. We're typically a few years behind emerging technology
I thought part of the change with the weapon; was the new ammo associated with it was polymer/composite case (and shorter case) that reduced weight by up to 40%...if so, why carry less ammo? I assume that is due to the increased ~2lbs on the weapon? I assume the new XM157 Fire Control optic, must provide a big accuracy boost...though I can't find numbers on that.Ulysses90 said:
The XM7 (Next Generation Squad Weapon) raises a lot of questions about how the requirement was derived and the combat modeling that supported the decision.
- Was there data to suggest that 5.56mm hits were not putting down the bad guys? The Marine Corps (and as far as I know the Army also) found no evidence of this over the past 20 year albeit they weren't shooting a enemy wearing plate body armor: "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets" (Johnson, 2007)." -Gen James Conway
- Historically ~90% of small arms engagements have taken place at distances of <300m. Is there evidence to suggest that this is going to change abruptly to require that every infantryman be equipped with a 6.8mm weapon that is lethal out to 1000m (assuming that the shooter can hit the target)?
- Since the basic ammo load if a rifleman drops from 210 rounds (seven 30 round magazines of 5.56mm) to 140 rounds (seven 20 round magazines of 6.8mm), how do you achieve a 50% improvement in accuracy to offset the 33% reduction in ammo?
- Does Army doctrine on the use of small arms fire for suppression change when ammunition quantities carried by soldiers are reduced by 33%?
- If the $10k NGSW Fire Control System (a.k.a. the optic) is going to provide the magic that allows a rifleman to increase accuracy (the ability to hit the target) by 50%, how much would it improve the performance of riflemen using the M4 Carbine?
After the decision to move to the 6.8mm cartridge, the Army has acknowledged that the surface danger zone is significantly greater than the 3600m for 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges. They won't say exactly what the SDZ is for a 6.8mm cartridge but it is probably closer to the 7200m distance of the .50 BMG. This means that approximately 80% of the small arms ranges on Army installations cannot support training with the 6.8mm cartridge because their SDZs are too short.
Furthermore, the 6.8mm Sig will blow holes through standard AR500 plate steel targets at close to medium distances. It will also penetrate completely through the standard target protection berms for pop-up targets which means that the 6.8mm Sig will cause significant damage to existing range infrastructure if it is used in training.
Consequently, the Army has decided to field a reduced charge 6.8mm training cartridge with different ballistic characteristics from the 6.8mm cartridge that will be used in combat. What's not to like?
"SIG Sauer developed an innovative thinner, lighter hybrid brass/alloy cartridge to pair with 6.8-millimeter projectiles, reducing overall weight by 30 percent. The new combination yields rounds that weigh about the same as the 5.56mm ammunition the M4/M249 fire. But it packs a much heavier punch, able to lethally pierce body armor close-in and at longer ranges."japantiger said:I thought part of the change with the weapon; was the new ammo associated with it was polymer/composite case (and shorter case) that reduced weight by up to 40%...if so, why carry less ammo? I assume that is due to the increased ~2lbs on the weapon? I assume the new XM157 Fire Control optic, must provide a big accuracy boost...though I can't find numbers on that.Ulysses90 said:
The XM7 (Next Generation Squad Weapon) raises a lot of questions about how the requirement was derived and the combat modeling that supported the decision.
- Was there data to suggest that 5.56mm hits were not putting down the bad guys? The Marine Corps (and as far as I know the Army also) found no evidence of this over the past 20 year albeit they weren't shooting a enemy wearing plate body armor: "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets" (Johnson, 2007)." -Gen James Conway
- Historically ~90% of small arms engagements have taken place at distances of <300m. Is there evidence to suggest that this is going to change abruptly to require that every infantryman be equipped with a 6.8mm weapon that is lethal out to 1000m (assuming that the shooter can hit the target)?
- Since the basic ammo load if a rifleman drops from 210 rounds (seven 30 round magazines of 5.56mm) to 140 rounds (seven 20 round magazines of 6.8mm), how do you achieve a 50% improvement in accuracy to offset the 33% reduction in ammo?
- Does Army doctrine on the use of small arms fire for suppression change when ammunition quantities carried by soldiers are reduced by 33%?
- If the $10k NGSW Fire Control System (a.k.a. the optic) is going to provide the magic that allows a rifleman to increase accuracy (the ability to hit the target) by 50%, how much would it improve the performance of riflemen using the M4 Carbine?
After the decision to move to the 6.8mm cartridge, the Army has acknowledged that the surface danger zone is significantly greater than the 3600m for 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges. They won't say exactly what the SDZ is for a 6.8mm cartridge but it is probably closer to the 7200m distance of the .50 BMG. This means that approximately 80% of the small arms ranges on Army installations cannot support training with the 6.8mm cartridge because their SDZs are too short.
Furthermore, the 6.8mm Sig will blow holes through standard AR500 plate steel targets at close to medium distances. It will also penetrate completely through the standard target protection berms for pop-up targets which means that the 6.8mm Sig will cause significant damage to existing range infrastructure if it is used in training.
Consequently, the Army has decided to field a reduced charge 6.8mm training cartridge with different ballistic characteristics from the 6.8mm cartridge that will be used in combat. What's not to like?
I'm still a little confused...does this say the round is heavier, but the cartridge is lighter, so net-net, no change in weight vs M4/M16 ammo?74OA said:"SIG Sauer developed an innovative thinner, lighter hybrid brass/alloy cartridge to pair with 6.8-millimeter projectiles, reducing overall weight by 30 percent. The new combination yields rounds that weigh about the same as the 5.56mm ammunition the M4/M249 fire. But it packs a much heavier punch, able to lethally pierce body armor close-in and at longer ranges."japantiger said:I thought part of the change with the weapon; was the new ammo associated with it was polymer/composite case (and shorter case) that reduced weight by up to 40%...if so, why carry less ammo? I assume that is due to the increased ~2lbs on the weapon? I assume the new XM157 Fire Control optic, must provide a big accuracy boost...though I can't find numbers on that.Ulysses90 said:
The XM7 (Next Generation Squad Weapon) raises a lot of questions about how the requirement was derived and the combat modeling that supported the decision.
- Was there data to suggest that 5.56mm hits were not putting down the bad guys? The Marine Corps (and as far as I know the Army also) found no evidence of this over the past 20 year albeit they weren't shooting a enemy wearing plate body armor: "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets" (Johnson, 2007)." -Gen James Conway
- Historically ~90% of small arms engagements have taken place at distances of <300m. Is there evidence to suggest that this is going to change abruptly to require that every infantryman be equipped with a 6.8mm weapon that is lethal out to 1000m (assuming that the shooter can hit the target)?
- Since the basic ammo load if a rifleman drops from 210 rounds (seven 30 round magazines of 5.56mm) to 140 rounds (seven 20 round magazines of 6.8mm), how do you achieve a 50% improvement in accuracy to offset the 33% reduction in ammo?
- Does Army doctrine on the use of small arms fire for suppression change when ammunition quantities carried by soldiers are reduced by 33%?
- If the $10k NGSW Fire Control System (a.k.a. the optic) is going to provide the magic that allows a rifleman to increase accuracy (the ability to hit the target) by 50%, how much would it improve the performance of riflemen using the M4 Carbine?
After the decision to move to the 6.8mm cartridge, the Army has acknowledged that the surface danger zone is significantly greater than the 3600m for 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges. They won't say exactly what the SDZ is for a 6.8mm cartridge but it is probably closer to the 7200m distance of the .50 BMG. This means that approximately 80% of the small arms ranges on Army installations cannot support training with the 6.8mm cartridge because their SDZs are too short.
Furthermore, the 6.8mm Sig will blow holes through standard AR500 plate steel targets at close to medium distances. It will also penetrate completely through the standard target protection berms for pop-up targets which means that the 6.8mm Sig will cause significant damage to existing range infrastructure if it is used in training.
Consequently, the Army has decided to field a reduced charge 6.8mm training cartridge with different ballistic characteristics from the 6.8mm cartridge that will be used in combat. What's not to like?
NGSW
OPTIC
As long as the rifle comes with crayons, Marines will be fine.BurnetAggie99 said:
The real question is what do the Marines think of this rifle
japantiger said:I'm still a little confused...does this say the round is heavier, but the cartridge is lighter, so net-net, no change in weight vs M4/M16 ammo?74OA said:"SIG Sauer developed an innovative thinner, lighter hybrid brass/alloy cartridge to pair with 6.8-millimeter projectiles, reducing overall weight by 30 percent. The new combination yields rounds that weigh about the same as the 5.56mm ammunition the M4/M249 fire. But it packs a much heavier punch, able to lethally pierce body armor close-in and at longer ranges."japantiger said:I thought part of the change with the weapon; was the new ammo associated with it was polymer/composite case (and shorter case) that reduced weight by up to 40%...if so, why carry less ammo? I assume that is due to the increased ~2lbs on the weapon? I assume the new XM157 Fire Control optic, must provide a big accuracy boost...though I can't find numbers on that.Ulysses90 said:
The XM7 (Next Generation Squad Weapon) raises a lot of questions about how the requirement was derived and the combat modeling that supported the decision.
- Was there data to suggest that 5.56mm hits were not putting down the bad guys? The Marine Corps (and as far as I know the Army also) found no evidence of this over the past 20 year albeit they weren't shooting a enemy wearing plate body armor: "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets" (Johnson, 2007)." -Gen James Conway
- Historically ~90% of small arms engagements have taken place at distances of <300m. Is there evidence to suggest that this is going to change abruptly to require that every infantryman be equipped with a 6.8mm weapon that is lethal out to 1000m (assuming that the shooter can hit the target)?
- Since the basic ammo load if a rifleman drops from 210 rounds (seven 30 round magazines of 5.56mm) to 140 rounds (seven 20 round magazines of 6.8mm), how do you achieve a 50% improvement in accuracy to offset the 33% reduction in ammo?
- Does Army doctrine on the use of small arms fire for suppression change when ammunition quantities carried by soldiers are reduced by 33%?
- If the $10k NGSW Fire Control System (a.k.a. the optic) is going to provide the magic that allows a rifleman to increase accuracy (the ability to hit the target) by 50%, how much would it improve the performance of riflemen using the M4 Carbine?
After the decision to move to the 6.8mm cartridge, the Army has acknowledged that the surface danger zone is significantly greater than the 3600m for 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges. They won't say exactly what the SDZ is for a 6.8mm cartridge but it is probably closer to the 7200m distance of the .50 BMG. This means that approximately 80% of the small arms ranges on Army installations cannot support training with the 6.8mm cartridge because their SDZs are too short.
Furthermore, the 6.8mm Sig will blow holes through standard AR500 plate steel targets at close to medium distances. It will also penetrate completely through the standard target protection berms for pop-up targets which means that the 6.8mm Sig will cause significant damage to existing range infrastructure if it is used in training.
Consequently, the Army has decided to field a reduced charge 6.8mm training cartridge with different ballistic characteristics from the 6.8mm cartridge that will be used in combat. What's not to like?
NGSW
OPTIC
I guess it was the bullpup rifle design that resulted in overall less ammo weight...and that didn't make the cut.
japantiger said:I'm still a little confused...does this say the round is heavier, but the cartridge is lighter, so net-net, no change in weight vs M4/M16 ammo?74OA said:"SIG Sauer developed an innovative thinner, lighter hybrid brass/alloy cartridge to pair with 6.8-millimeter projectiles, reducing overall weight by 30 percent. The new combination yields rounds that weigh about the same as the 5.56mm ammunition the M4/M249 fire. But it packs a much heavier punch, able to lethally pierce body armor close-in and at longer ranges."japantiger said:I thought part of the change with the weapon; was the new ammo associated with it was polymer/composite case (and shorter case) that reduced weight by up to 40%...if so, why carry less ammo? I assume that is due to the increased ~2lbs on the weapon? I assume the new XM157 Fire Control optic, must provide a big accuracy boost...though I can't find numbers on that.Ulysses90 said:
The XM7 (Next Generation Squad Weapon) raises a lot of questions about how the requirement was derived and the combat modeling that supported the decision.
- Was there data to suggest that 5.56mm hits were not putting down the bad guys? The Marine Corps (and as far as I know the Army also) found no evidence of this over the past 20 year albeit they weren't shooting a enemy wearing plate body armor: "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets" (Johnson, 2007)." -Gen James Conway
- Historically ~90% of small arms engagements have taken place at distances of <300m. Is there evidence to suggest that this is going to change abruptly to require that every infantryman be equipped with a 6.8mm weapon that is lethal out to 1000m (assuming that the shooter can hit the target)?
- Since the basic ammo load if a rifleman drops from 210 rounds (seven 30 round magazines of 5.56mm) to 140 rounds (seven 20 round magazines of 6.8mm), how do you achieve a 50% improvement in accuracy to offset the 33% reduction in ammo?
- Does Army doctrine on the use of small arms fire for suppression change when ammunition quantities carried by soldiers are reduced by 33%?
- If the $10k NGSW Fire Control System (a.k.a. the optic) is going to provide the magic that allows a rifleman to increase accuracy (the ability to hit the target) by 50%, how much would it improve the performance of riflemen using the M4 Carbine?
After the decision to move to the 6.8mm cartridge, the Army has acknowledged that the surface danger zone is significantly greater than the 3600m for 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges. They won't say exactly what the SDZ is for a 6.8mm cartridge but it is probably closer to the 7200m distance of the .50 BMG. This means that approximately 80% of the small arms ranges on Army installations cannot support training with the 6.8mm cartridge because their SDZs are too short.
Furthermore, the 6.8mm Sig will blow holes through standard AR500 plate steel targets at close to medium distances. It will also penetrate completely through the standard target protection berms for pop-up targets which means that the 6.8mm Sig will cause significant damage to existing range infrastructure if it is used in training.
Consequently, the Army has decided to field a reduced charge 6.8mm training cartridge with different ballistic characteristics from the 6.8mm cartridge that will be used in combat. What's not to like?
NGSW
OPTIC
I guess it was the bullpup rifle design that resulted in overall less ammo weight...and that didn't make the cut.
Quote:
The XM5 is about 2 lbs heavier than the M4, ammo weighs almost 3 times as much meaning the average grunt is going to carry a lot less ammo, and we have yet to see the hyper need for this magically new cartridge like the Army claims there is.
Confusing. The Sept 2023 article I linked above says the final 6.8 designed for the XM7 weighs about what the 5.56 weighs, not three times as much?Ulysses90 said:japantiger said:I'm still a little confused...does this say the round is heavier, but the cartridge is lighter, so net-net, no change in weight vs M4/M16 ammo?74OA said:"SIG Sauer developed an innovative thinner, lighter hybrid brass/alloy cartridge to pair with 6.8-millimeter projectiles, reducing overall weight by 30 percent. The new combination yields rounds that weigh about the same as the 5.56mm ammunition the M4/M249 fire. But it packs a much heavier punch, able to lethally pierce body armor close-in and at longer ranges."japantiger said:I thought part of the change with the weapon; was the new ammo associated with it was polymer/composite case (and shorter case) that reduced weight by up to 40%...if so, why carry less ammo? I assume that is due to the increased ~2lbs on the weapon? I assume the new XM157 Fire Control optic, must provide a big accuracy boost...though I can't find numbers on that.Ulysses90 said:
The XM7 (Next Generation Squad Weapon) raises a lot of questions about how the requirement was derived and the combat modeling that supported the decision.
- Was there data to suggest that 5.56mm hits were not putting down the bad guys? The Marine Corps (and as far as I know the Army also) found no evidence of this over the past 20 year albeit they weren't shooting a enemy wearing plate body armor: "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets" (Johnson, 2007)." -Gen James Conway
- Historically ~90% of small arms engagements have taken place at distances of <300m. Is there evidence to suggest that this is going to change abruptly to require that every infantryman be equipped with a 6.8mm weapon that is lethal out to 1000m (assuming that the shooter can hit the target)?
- Since the basic ammo load if a rifleman drops from 210 rounds (seven 30 round magazines of 5.56mm) to 140 rounds (seven 20 round magazines of 6.8mm), how do you achieve a 50% improvement in accuracy to offset the 33% reduction in ammo?
- Does Army doctrine on the use of small arms fire for suppression change when ammunition quantities carried by soldiers are reduced by 33%?
- If the $10k NGSW Fire Control System (a.k.a. the optic) is going to provide the magic that allows a rifleman to increase accuracy (the ability to hit the target) by 50%, how much would it improve the performance of riflemen using the M4 Carbine?
After the decision to move to the 6.8mm cartridge, the Army has acknowledged that the surface danger zone is significantly greater than the 3600m for 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges. They won't say exactly what the SDZ is for a 6.8mm cartridge but it is probably closer to the 7200m distance of the .50 BMG. This means that approximately 80% of the small arms ranges on Army installations cannot support training with the 6.8mm cartridge because their SDZs are too short.
Furthermore, the 6.8mm Sig will blow holes through standard AR500 plate steel targets at close to medium distances. It will also penetrate completely through the standard target protection berms for pop-up targets which means that the 6.8mm Sig will cause significant damage to existing range infrastructure if it is used in training.
Consequently, the Army has decided to field a reduced charge 6.8mm training cartridge with different ballistic characteristics from the 6.8mm cartridge that will be used in combat. What's not to like?
NGSW
OPTIC
I guess it was the bullpup rifle design that resulted in overall less ammo weight...and that didn't make the cut.japantiger said:I'm still a little confused...does this say the round is heavier, but the cartridge is lighter, so net-net, no change in weight vs M4/M16 ammo?74OA said:"SIG Sauer developed an innovative thinner, lighter hybrid brass/alloy cartridge to pair with 6.8-millimeter projectiles, reducing overall weight by 30 percent. The new combination yields rounds that weigh about the same as the 5.56mm ammunition the M4/M249 fire. But it packs a much heavier punch, able to lethally pierce body armor close-in and at longer ranges."japantiger said:I thought part of the change with the weapon; was the new ammo associated with it was polymer/composite case (and shorter case) that reduced weight by up to 40%...if so, why carry less ammo? I assume that is due to the increased ~2lbs on the weapon? I assume the new XM157 Fire Control optic, must provide a big accuracy boost...though I can't find numbers on that.Ulysses90 said:
The XM7 (Next Generation Squad Weapon) raises a lot of questions about how the requirement was derived and the combat modeling that supported the decision.
- Was there data to suggest that 5.56mm hits were not putting down the bad guys? The Marine Corps (and as far as I know the Army also) found no evidence of this over the past 20 year albeit they weren't shooting a enemy wearing plate body armor: "It's not the round, it's the shooter. If we hit them [enemy combatants], we put them down. The problem is we're not very good at hitting moving targets" (Johnson, 2007)." -Gen James Conway
- Historically ~90% of small arms engagements have taken place at distances of <300m. Is there evidence to suggest that this is going to change abruptly to require that every infantryman be equipped with a 6.8mm weapon that is lethal out to 1000m (assuming that the shooter can hit the target)?
- Since the basic ammo load if a rifleman drops from 210 rounds (seven 30 round magazines of 5.56mm) to 140 rounds (seven 20 round magazines of 6.8mm), how do you achieve a 50% improvement in accuracy to offset the 33% reduction in ammo?
- Does Army doctrine on the use of small arms fire for suppression change when ammunition quantities carried by soldiers are reduced by 33%?
- If the $10k NGSW Fire Control System (a.k.a. the optic) is going to provide the magic that allows a rifleman to increase accuracy (the ability to hit the target) by 50%, how much would it improve the performance of riflemen using the M4 Carbine?
After the decision to move to the 6.8mm cartridge, the Army has acknowledged that the surface danger zone is significantly greater than the 3600m for 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO cartridges. They won't say exactly what the SDZ is for a 6.8mm cartridge but it is probably closer to the 7200m distance of the .50 BMG. This means that approximately 80% of the small arms ranges on Army installations cannot support training with the 6.8mm cartridge because their SDZs are too short.
Furthermore, the 6.8mm Sig will blow holes through standard AR500 plate steel targets at close to medium distances. It will also penetrate completely through the standard target protection berms for pop-up targets which means that the 6.8mm Sig will cause significant damage to existing range infrastructure if it is used in training.
Consequently, the Army has decided to field a reduced charge 6.8mm training cartridge with different ballistic characteristics from the 6.8mm cartridge that will be used in combat. What's not to like?
NGSW
OPTIC
I guess it was the bullpup rifle design that resulted in overall less ammo weight...and that didn't make the cut.
The new cartridge is 6.8x51mm so it is as long as the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. The receiver is the size of an AR10 rather than an M4/AR15.
The hybrid case is a combination of stainless steel and brass, not polymer and brass. General Dynamics proposed a rifle that used a composite polymer case but Sign won out. Regardless of the weight difference, the XM7 is being fielded with 20 round magazines.
As I was searching for this information, I found this very informative summary that includes the actual chamber pressure. My guess was way low. It's actually 80,000 psi. That ultra high pressure is what necessitates the hybrid case with stainless steel. The cost is going to be far more than 5.56mm ammo. This article is from 2022 and refers to the rifle as the XM5 rather than the XM7. No idea what differentiates the two.
https://www.snipercountry.com/277-sig-fury-6-8x51mm/Quote:
The XM5 is about 2 lbs heavier than the M4, ammo weighs almost 3 times as much meaning the average grunt is going to carry a lot less ammo, and we have yet to see the hyper need for this magically new cartridge like the Army claims there is.
A loaded 30 round aluminum magazine of 5.56 weighs 1.98 pounds. If the 6.8 ammo weight 3x what 5.5.56mm then each Soldier will be carrying 140 rounds of ammo that weighs 21 pounds vice 210 rounds of ammo that weighs 14 pounds.
In the Middle East?TexasRebel said:
So
Surplus to the public?
Probably why my fish finder radar is going nuts. Probably.IndividualFreedom said:
Did anyone else lose all their firearms in a bizarre boating accident?
They'll have to find out when they pick a few up off the battlefield somedayBurnetAggie99 said:
The real question is what do the Marines think of this rifle
Everyone has an opinion on ammo in the hunting world, but it sounds like eventually the 277 fury is going to be more popular, down the road. 308 will still be much more common, even in a hundred years, imho.Quote:
However, to maximize the capabilities of this rifle, the Next Gen ammunition it was designed for will be the key. From what I understand, the .277 Fury round from the standard issue 13-inch barrel is capable of 20-30 percent more energy on target at 1,000 yards than a 6.5 Creedmoor.
It also drops around 6 feet less than the 6.5 Creedmoor at 1,000 yards. That's incredible but I have not been able to test that myself.
One of the reasons I bought a Springfield M1A Scout a few years back (and subsequently lost it in a tragic boating accident, Mr. ATF agent; go do something productive with your life). .308 and 7.62x51 are readily available and relatively inexpensive. Plus, it's a really fun platform if you don't feel the need to load it down with accessories that cost more than the rifle itself.FJB24 said:
Everyone has an opinion on ammo in the hunting world, but it sounds like eventually the 277 fury is going to be more popular, down the road. 308 will still be much more common, even in a hundred years, imho.