Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 94 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The US Army appears ready to begin testing a prototype of what might become the next US Military service cartridge. The Army began the search for a new rifle, light machine gun, and new cartridge in 2017, under the program title, Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW). Initial competitors were narrowed down to two, Sig and General Dynamics/True Velocity. In April 2022, Army spokesmen announced that Sig had won the competition. Sig will produce prototype rifles and light machine guns chambered in the Sig designed cartridge .277 Sig Fury. Lake City Arsenal is gearing up to produce prototype ammunition in conventional brass cases, but also in a Sig designed hybrid case with stainless steel case head attached to brass case walls. This hybrid case has been approved by SAMMI to operate at 80,000 psi max. Some discussion about this cartridge has already taken place in another thread titled, “Operating Pressures of Modern Bolt Actions.”

I am starting this thread because I would like to hear members opinions on the merits and suitability of this new service cartridge. I am particularly interested to hear from veterans who surely have informed opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of 5.56 and 7.62mm, and what they think we need now.

The .30-06 was our service cartridge through two world wars. The experience of WW2 lead the US military and our NATO allies to search for a more appropriate common service cartridge and rifle. Most here know about the controversies involving the M14 and the FN FAL, and the US imposition of the .308/7.62 on the NATO allies who preferred a moderately powered 7mm or .277 cartridge.

Toward the end of WW2, the Germans developed and fielded the “Sturmgewehr 44” firing a moderately powered and light recoiling 8mm cartridge that proved very effective out to 200 yards and beyond. The Soviets were so impressed that they developed the 7.62 x 39 chambered in the AK 47.

The M16/M4 are light weight rifles, and it is possible for a soldier to carry a 1000 rounds of ammunition, but it is a short range cartridge. The Army thinks we need a long range cartridge that hits harder and penetrates deeper. I would like to hear what members (particularly veterans) think about the .277 Sig Fury, and Sig’s XM5 rifle and XM250 machine gun.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,861 Posts
More BS from those that market by 'new and improved'. Without a new product, there can't be a new income stream.
This was hashed out in the past days on this forum.
This link will fill out your question, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pudfark and tdoyka

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
So they're not just testing a new cartridge, they have adopted the new cartridge.
Everyone is freaked out because it's a Main Battle Rifle type cartridge, rather than an assault rifle cartridge. And the last time we made such a decision it didn't work out real well for us.

But this is all about penetrating body armor. For al the naysayers, the question I have is... If this is the wrong step, then what is the right step?

5.56 just lacks the mass to be effective against body armor, and 7.26 is marginal for velocity. The new cartridge gives the performance they have deemed is necessary to penetrate body armor out to 600m. Of course the projectiles are still secret, but I suspect they're using tungsten...which is un-GODLY expensive. So not sure where all that is going to go.

Everyone likes to second guess the DOD but they tend to make the right calls where ordnance is concerned (M14 excepted).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,179 Posts
i have a few of the old AP ammo in the '06, somewhere. they are black tipped. my grandpap brought them home after WW2.

back when i was in the Army, they had a 500 or 600 meter target that we could shoot at. this was with aperture sights and supported/unsupportive. once when ya figure out the drop and the wind(5.56), you can hit the target. it seemed to me, that we were giving away our position to unsuspecting troops. but i was trained on the USSR coming into Europe and the flak jackets just aren't as good as the Kevlar vest and plates.

boy, do wonder off!!!!!!! :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
693 Posts
I believe, what JBelk and tdoyka said above. Why? This is a cash grab and a money spend. The actual problem has not been adequately Identified. CQB is serious concern, long range other'n sniping, not so much. What I find interesting, is the Russian tactics now, they started out CQB, got their 'collective' butts kicked, now use artillery and rockets to destroy every structure and fight from one pile of rubble to another. They're still losing, though with less reported casualties?

The small drones should have more serious development and study. The usefulness seems to be now, beyond doubt. I believe, that's the 0- 600 meter and beyond, useful weapon. The U.S. Army has incredible Air and asset support. A-10 production should resume, immediately.

Last of my windy post. The .277 was developed prior to WWII, the Army tested weapons and ammo for it and it's use was dismissed, primarily to all the stock piles of WWI 3006 ammo. I've always been a Win .270 fan. I could see development of another cartridge for CQB, larger bullet, 6-7mm on a platform different than the current AR. It's my belief that comprise in Military weapons of the U.S. has always sucked. There, I'm done for now. Sorry.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,861 Posts
I'll take the M-14 in 7x57, please. Some of those long, skinny Barnes solids will do. 1-9 twist, thanks.
Since Russia can obviously make a machine gun work with a rimmed cartridge, we could just adopt the 6mm Lee Navy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tdoyka and Pudfark

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
693 Posts
I'll take the M-14 in 7x57, please. Some of those long, skinny Barnes solids will do. 1-9 twist, thanks.
Since Russia can obviously make a machine gun work with a rimmed cartridge, we could just adopt the 6mm Lee Navy.
That Barnes satisfies the penetration question, kinda like the idea. Go Navy, that's good too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Well again, if not the 6.8x51 then what?
No other military has the ability to punch the best body armor in the world out to 600m. In fact, they can't even punch body armor at 20 feet. So...

We're giving up some firepower advantage for a very big advantage in lethality. If we're ever in a fair fight (first sign you screwed up), then they will have the advantage in firepower, which means better suppression. But our armor will stop many lethal hits, and their armor won't.

So their firepower advantage will be offset by our greater lethality. Let's hope and pray they never get the chance to prove if they were right or wrong!!! I'm tired of all the wars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
as far as i am concerned, the 7x57 is should of where they stopped.
Apparently, the Brits agreed with you. The experimental .280 British (7x43 mm) round, intended for their experimental EM-2 "Bullpup" rifle (and possibly the FN-FAL) was, to the 7 Mauser, very much the same as the .308 is to the .30-06. Slightly more modest ballistics, in a considerably shorter case, with a somewhat improved projectile shape.
The obstinacy of the U.S. Army logistics board helped prevent the advent of a truly superb rifle/cartridge combination that, for all we know, we might STILL be using.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
693 Posts
Most respectfully, I truly believed the 'body armor' argument was prefabricated (pun intended) to justify an at this time, a needless expenditure. Most folks in my previous occupation wore body armor, I never did. I had the same job, just a different outlook. There was a notorious bank robbery huge shoot out with the cops in California awhile back, turds wore body armor. Cops shot center mass and couldn't put'm down. Finally taken out by shooting them in the foot. Nobody after that advocated that all cops be equipped with their primary weapon as an armor piercing weapon. I can hear some folks saying now, that military is different than cop work, ok. I'm just saying from experience, that at spitting distance, there's no difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,179 Posts
you have a stick, i have a sword

you have a sword, i have steel armor and a sword

you have a bodkin tipped arrow, i have chain mail

and so on.

weapon beats armor everytime. do you want to be in a t-80 tank or a Javelin operator? i'm not trying to go political, but where would you rather be? i'd take Javelin every day and twicet on Sunday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Cheap body armor is showing up all over the globe. You can get a plate carrier for $179 t hat will stop a .308 AP. You really don't want to be behind the curve on such things. The fact that you personally didn't wear it, or that you rarely encountered it is anecdotal data from ONE guy. The army leadership is concerned.

I see ZERO evidence for any of your conspiratorial thoughts. The army is concerned about the threat, they are the experts on what the army needs, not us. They feel its a problem, and they're one of the only military organizations that is addressing the issue.

Just don't understand why gun people are so conspiratorial.
 
1 - 20 of 94 Posts
Top