Yes they do but much more refined for drones etc. Next year those drones will be ineffective.
We basically reached the level of what is possible with AI, now people are working on as to how to beat it.
Army Captain Slams New XM7 Rifle As “Unfit,” Sig Sauer Says Otherwise
- Thread starter CV32
- Start date
Yes they do but much more refined for drones etc. Next year those drones will be ineffective.
We basically reached the level of what is possible with AI, now people are working on as to how to beat it.
Someone decided the M16 didn't need to be cleaned and so they didn't issue individual cleaning kits. One cannot imagine a more idiotic idea than the direct impingement M16, which blows gas directly into the BCG and receiver didn't need to be cleaned.
Once again, nothing to do with the rifle itself.
me thinks there may be shenanigans afoot
Someone decided the M16 didn't need to be cleaned and so they didn't issue individual cleaning kits. One cannot imagine a more idiotic idea than the direct impingement M16, which blows gas directly into the BCG and receiver didn't need to be cleaned.
Once again, nothing to do with the rifle itself.
The Stoner system can be impressively reliable now, although that wasn't the case 60 years ago, or even 20 years ago, when talking mass produced rack grade examples.
Uhhhhhhhh ........ what you talkin bout Willis? The CDN Forces C7 I used 35 years ago was plenty reliable.
The civilian AR15's I have owned for 25+ years have all been reliable. The AR15 has been a reliable system for most of its tenure. If you think not, then what has changed in the design since the 1960's?
The cause of the unreliability during Vietnam was the ammo, specifically the powder that the army chose instead of listening to Stoner. That and the idiot notion the M16 didn't need to be cleaned because it was "self cleaning". These things are totally unrelated to the rifle itself ... which I have now pointed out THREE TIMES in this thread.
I guess old wive's tales never die.Uhhhhhhhh ........ what you talkin bout Willis? The CDN Forces C7 I used 35 years ago was plenty reliable.
The civilian AR15's I have owned for 25+ years have all been reliable. The AR15 has been a reliable system for most of its tenure. If you think not, then what has changed in the design since the 1960's?
The cause of the unreliability during Vietnam was the ammo, specifically the powder that the army chose instead of listening to Stoner. That and the idiot notion the M16 didn't need to be cleaned because it was "self cleaning". These things are totally unrelated to the rifle itself ... which I have now pointed out THREE TIMES in this thread.
Most of the guys I talked to who used them in combat or taught classes where they were being subjected to high rounds count in pre GWOT times say different.
There's a reason why the AR didn't totally dominate the modem rifle market back in the day, despite having a huge head start over the competition, and it wasn't just because of the Vietnam reputation.
Well, what I saw happening was that the US dragged the rest of NATO kicking and screaming* into the adoption of the 5.56 caliber and abandoning the 7.62 calibre every other country liked a lot.
* screaming into their pillows at least.
"... excessive barrel wear and regular breakages of key components..."
Easy solution, Sig can simply update the instruction handbook to " to prevent excessive barrel wear and regular breakages of key components, best preventive measure is not to fire the rifle"
Easy solution, Sig can simply update the instruction handbook to " to prevent excessive barrel wear and regular breakages of key components, best preventive measure is not to fire the rifle"
I believe lack of chromed barrels compounded some of the issues of the rifle at launch in the jungle environment.
Add the powder on top of lack of proper maintenance and you get a pretty bad combination.
I'll admit to fudging the maintenance on my Poly and never had an issue with it, despite feeding it nothing but Norinco ammo.
Add the powder on top of lack of proper maintenance and you get a pretty bad combination.
I'll admit to fudging the maintenance on my Poly and never had an issue with it, despite feeding it nothing but Norinco ammo.
Could you apply the same tech from the Sig Fury round to a .223/5.56 size round, and would it still have enough arse behind it to penetrate body armour? Badlands Shell Shock ammo uses a nickel-laced case to increase pressure in the case to get further supersonic distances. I know it is in Sig's interest to make new rifles, but they do have a .223/5.56 version of their own pistol gun, so if they could downsize the fury round and maintain the armour penetration, that would allow them to sell new rifles while also allowing the re-barreling of older rifles and the use of existing magazines and other parts, while maintaining the potential for covering fire that is maintained by carrying large amounts of intermediate cartridges and maintaining the relative lightness to carry of an intermediate round rifle.
Has anyone actually seen the results of a penetration test that shows the 277 Fury penetrating ceramic Lvl 4 plates? I have yet to see any video showing any small arm sized cartridge penetrate a Lvl 4 plate on the first round.
Amping up the 223 or a similar cartridge that can run reliably through an M4 would likely produce the same problems Sig is experiencing. More pressure, more heat, more velocity will result in increased wear and parts breakage. Its just physics.
Agreed on the wear. After all, 6.5 Creedmore wears through barrels through faster then .308. So an intermediate fury upper would still break parts faster, but at least you would have more rounds on you. You could still keep the majority of your forces running standard 5.56, but distribute the Fury uppers to anyone being the tip of the spear against armoured opponents, and maintain the same general manual of arms.
The 6.8 velocity and weight are calculated such that when "tungsten" bullet is used it would smash ceramic plates. The 6.8 formula is developed by the DoD and they sent "surrogate" bullets to the manufacturers for development. they want that weight and velocity for the Kinectic energy combination.
This is to replace the old M995 and M998. The 5.56 version is not a guarantee against ceramic plates. The US even developed a new sintering process for Tungsten and let the industry use the IP for free.
IMHO, replacing or retrofitting all 7.62 weapon system with 6.8 makes more sense than replacing 5.56 with 7.62. The army M110A1 aka HK417 could be replaced by a 6.8 system, so are all GPMG and mini-guns, and also 5.56 SAW at squad level. Those 7.62 systems have longer barrel already so they can reduce the pressure of 6.8 and achieve the same velocity
Last edited:
Upon conversing with Paul Holland of 5th Group and the designer of 6.8 SPC, one of my main takeaways from his teachings was that the United States Department of Defense was shy on tungsten.
Does Canada have more Tungsten then Russia, China, Portugal, Australia, and Vietnam combined?
Plausible.
However, the United States does not as far as we know. The wilds of Alaska may, but we are not going to be digging up mountains and changing the skyline up there.
What smashes Level 4 plates?
Fast Tool Steel. 135gr.
Hence the .277 Fury EPR program.
What else smashes Level 4 plates like it is nothing at 200m?
SMKh 8mm Mauser. (130GR TUNGSTEN CORE .240 DIA.) AT 2950 fps. Total weight is 198gr.
1939.
175gr .338 ARC Shape charge Copper Det Vel at 11,000 meters per second would work even at 3000m but the cost of production is FAR too high. Concave pennies with ONC.
Cost of 5.45mm Tungsten 7n23 is only like .20 cents per shot or less...if you factor forced labor 0.01 per round.
Lead and copper projectiles smash ceramic plates and they still don't penetrate Lvl 4, not even with multiple close by hits.
Can anyone show an example of 277 Fury penetrating a Lvl 4 plate with a single round?
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
well this only followed the after the US dragged NATO into using the 7.62x51 rather then adopt that other 'British round' that was developed as part of the 1950's ideal caliber trials..... 7x43mm
Right now we don't actually know the answer because the projectile in the test above was not a mil spec AP round or something with a penetrator. Using a bullet much like the new M855A2 and that 86x51 round should offer a lot more armour penetration .... maybe. So the true answer is, "kinda, sorta, maybe, we'll see"
The load info interests me. It is clear that the shorter barrel is a real compromise or problem to overcome. Four years I have been using a 125gr Ballistic Tip in my 20" barrelled 308 at 3000 fps. The 277 Fury civilian round is a 135gr bullet at only 2600 fps. Apparently 7" of barrel makes a BIG difference.
The load info interests me. It is clear that the shorter barrel is a real compromise or problem to overcome. Four years I have been using a 125gr Ballistic Tip in my 20" barrelled 308 at 3000 fps. The 277 Fury civilian round is a 135gr bullet at only 2600 fps. Apparently 7" of barrel makes a BIG difference.
