Reloading for the new .277 Fury from Sig

Speaking of that Vortex optic, do you know if that thing is made/assembled in the US or China like most of their other offerings. Sorry about the thread hijack implication here. Don't mean to get off topic, but your mentioning it made me think about it.

Per Vortex, it will be assembled in Wisconsin using American made glass and American machined aerospace aluminum housings. Some of the electronic components may come from overseas but the sources for those types of chips will, based on normal DOD contract terms, be US allies if not US production. So, Japan, Taiwan, and/or Israel. (I used to work for a computer manufacturer whose clients included DOD and DOD suppliers and those three countries produced all the chips, etc. we used that we're not Made in USA.)

Edited to add: Oops! I forgot one. We did source completed circuit boards using those countries chips from Mexico. Lots of automated circuit board/wave solder production their for those types of things.
 
@jbs2014 , a friend posted this on FB ...

Not my circus not my monkeys.jpg
 
Per Vortex, it will be assembled in Wisconsin using American made glass and American machined aerospace aluminum housings. Some of the electronic components may come from overseas but the sources for those types of chips will, based on normal DOD contract terms, be US allies if not US production. So, Japan, Taiwan, and/or Israel. (I used to work for a computer manufacturer whose clients included DOD and DOD suppliers and those three countries produced all the chips, etc. we used that we're not Made in USA.)

Edited to add: Oops! I forgot one. We did source completed circuit boards using those countries chips from Mexico. Lots of automated circuit board/wave solder production their for those types of things.
Thanks. I was wondering what all of us were thinking. China getting its mits on new US tech, materials, and plans. Whew...
 
Speaking of that Vortex optic, do you know if that thing is made/assembled in the US or China like most of their other offerings. Sorry about the thread hijack implication here. Don't mean to get off topic, but your mentioning it made me think about it.
I saw part of Vortex Podcast on it. They claim that per the military contract everything is required to be made, sourced, and assembled in the U.S. from the lenses on down. I don't know if that is good or bad for the quality but it sure will be for the price with each part made under the military spec procurement system. And there are rules about not undercutting military prices on civilian models too so it will be pretty pricy. Im sure Vortex will make a version that uses some the tech but is changed enough to constitute a separate product and outsource it for ChiCom production. Maybe a high end version from the Phillipines.

LOW is just too pricy I guess even in the premium glass.
 
That seems to be your area of expertise
You know where you can go. Have at! By the way, why don't you go play in your sandbox. Try not to get dirty or mommy might spank you, ground you, and take away your toys. Let the adults have a conversation that has no room for people having nothing productive to contribute.
 
You know where you can go. Have at! By the way, why don't you go play in your sandbox. Try not to get dirty or mommy might spank you, ground you, and take away your toys. Let the adults have a conversation that has no room for people having nothing productive to contribute.
If this is an "adult conversation" the you had better join me in the sandbox.
 
Let's back up to the very beginning and realize ALL of this has been ammo driven from the very start.

1) Based on engagement distances in Afghanistan, proliferation of cheap Level IV body armor among "potential near peer adversaries" (China and Russia), and age of current systems (mostly M249), the US Army wanted new infantry weapons.

2) US Army initially thought a 6.5mm round would be the best choice (a la SOCOM's use of some weapons in 6.5CM) but when armor penetrators were tested, 6.5 was removed from consideration.

2) US Army testing indicated that a 6.8mm was the smallest projectile that could house the penetrator necessary to meet the requirements and that muzzle velocity would need to be 3,000fps.

3) US Army designed said projectile as a 135gr bullet to house the required penetrator.

4) Lake City (first under Federal and now Winchester management) has made ALL of the projectiles used in the NGSW project testing and supplied them to SIG, True Velocity, and Textron.

5) NGSW requirements were said projectile at said velocity. Competitors were left with how to achieve this as part of their design with the additional requirements that loaded rounds be a XX% lighter than 7.62x51 NATO ball rounds (I think the XX% was 30% but I am not 100%.) and that the rifle/carbine be equal to or shorter than a particular length.

6) Textron did this with composite cased, telescoped (bullet almost completely in the case) rounds and a bullpup action with long barrel.

7) True Velocity used their composite cases and a bullpup action with long barrel like Textron.

8) SIG came up with the three piece case at 80k psi in a weapon laid out like an M4.

9) As much as the US Army loves cased telescoped rounds (they have been funding development for 20+ years), Textron was the first potential weapon system eliminated. As far as I can tell, this was because of two reasons.
A) There is no way to repurpose existing 7.62 production lines at Lake City to make cased telescoped rounds.
B) There is no easy way to retrofit the M240 to fire cased telescoped rounds and the military is not looking to replace all the M240s in inventory.

10) That left SIG and True Velocity/Lone Star Weapons Systems. My take is SIG won because they were the "easy button". The new M5 (MCX Spear) will require little to no changes to weapons manipulation training vs the M4. This is especially important since M4s will remain issued to rear echelon troops for the foreseeable future. Also, the design of SIG's three part case is closer to current cases than True Velocity's composite case so retooling and repurposing Lake City for it will be less expensive. Rebuilding M240s would basically be a wash, cost-wise. That said, part of me believes the mostly brass SIG case is the better choice for the current links used for belt fed weapons.

11) As far as I can tell, there is no "still deciding". The three part case is the case. Lake City is already retooling one line to load it in the interim while they build a new, dedicated facility for it long term which is scheduled to be complete in 2025.

12) US Army has already sent out inquires to industry for M240 retrofit proposals.

FYI - Some good info here:
That article was a pretty good read. I have not had the time to read the ICD or any of the other requirement documents for this soon to be POR. What perplexes me is the 80,000 PSI chamber pressure thing. Was that specified as a KSA in their CDD or was it a result of a KSA (such as penetration of level IV body armor at a certain distance) in the CDD. Maybe it was required so they could launch heavy for caliber tungsten core projectiles maybe?
 
That article was a pretty good read. I have not had the time to read the ICD or any of the other requirement documents for this soon to be POR. What perplexes me is the 80,000 PSI chamber pressure thing. Was that specified as a KSA in their CDD or was it a result of a KSA (such as penetration of level IV body armor at a certain distance) in the CDD. Maybe it was required so they could launch heavy for caliber tungsten core projectiles maybe?

A function of the Army's requirement for a muzzle velocity of 3,000fps with their designed and manufactured penetrator projectile. They want Level IV armor penetration to a certain distance (which has not been published to my knowledge) and they calculated a required muzzle velocity for the projectile.

True Velocity and Textron's entries did this using bullpup rifles with longer barrels (~20") and pressures in the 63k-65k psi range.

SIG apparently wanted a rifle that was as close to an M4 as possible as soldier "touch points" (handling reviews) were part of the process and I believe they thought this would give them an advantage. (Note: The Army has said Textron was dropped from consideration after the second round of these "touch points".) The only way get to 3,000fps with the resulting 16" barrel was to use a larger/longer case (neither works based on other constraints) or increase pressure. So, 80k psi in a hybrid case was the result.
 
A function of the Army's requirement for a muzzle velocity of 3,000fps with their designed and manufactured penetrator projectile. They want Level IV armor penetration to a certain distance (which has not been published to my knowledge) and they calculated a required muzzle velocity for the projectile.

True Velocity and Textron's entries did this using bullpup rifles with longer barrels (~20") and pressures in the 63k-65k psi range.

SIG apparently wanted a rifle that was as close to an M4 as possible as soldier "touch points" (handling reviews) were part of the process and I believe they thought this would give them an advantage. (Note: The Army has said Textron was dropped from consideration after the second round of these "touch points".) The only way get to 3,000fps with the resulting 16" barrel was to use a larger/longer case (neither works based on other constraints) or increase pressure. So, 80k psi in a hybrid case was the result.
80k psi could be a barrel burner. I wonder if DOD has a requirement to drive industry to come up with a longer lasting barrel? Or maybe lower pressure training ammo?
 
Top