Are you implying a don't know how to read a press release which is 80% marketing hype? I'm telling you I spoke with a Program manger from PEO soldier and he said "they are still evaluating case type because of the links for the ngsw". They are still testing it. They want this rollout to be smooth, not the debacle of the m-16 in Vietnam.
Reloading for the new .277 Fury from Sig
- Thread starter C-130 Dude
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Are you implying a don't know how to read a press release which is 80% marketing hype? I'm telling you I spoke with a Program manger from PEO soldier and he said "they are still evaluating case type because of the links for the ngsw". They are still testing it. They want this rollout to be smooth, not the debacle of the m-16 in Vietnam.
Please, get that thread started.
baggy270
Well-Known Member
The weapon without the round =nothing. The weapons system was chosen based on an RFQ for 277 caliber bullet leaving a 16" barrel at over 3000 fps with weapons that could fire the round. Whether they are evaluating or not they know it will work or they wouldn't have given SIG the contract. Are they going to send all the weapons to the scrap yard that are being replaced with the sig on day one. No. They will send a limited number to soldiers to use and improve on them if need be.
Army chooses Sig Sauer to build its Next Generation Squad Weapon
The weapon has an advanced optic, shoots 6.8mm and will replace the M4 carbine and M249 SAW.
www.armytimes.com
They could send the weapon to the scrap yard, look at the small arms acquisition history, xm8, xm25, scar17. Then all the sand/dust testing of m4/m16's vs scar, hk416 etc. the past 20years are littered with failed acquisition programs. Don't get me started on the m17.The weapon without the round =nothing. The weapons system was chosen based on an RFQ for 277 caliber bullet leaving a 16" barrel at over 3000 fps with weapons that could fire the round. Whether they are evaluating or not they know it will work or they wouldn't have given SIG the contract. Are they going to send all the weapons to the scrap yard that are being replaced with the sig on day one. No. They will send a limited number to soldiers to use and improve on them if need be.
Army chooses Sig Sauer to build its Next Generation Squad Weapon
The weapon has an advanced optic, shoots 6.8mm and will replace the M4 carbine and M249 SAW.
Not to worry. I made sure my wife was literate before I married her.Glad I don't do your laundry!
C-130 Dude is having a rough week...
It's kind of a problem at the moment. Apparently, Sig has stated there is a brass and 3 part case. IMHO, Sig needs to do a bit better job telling us what/why the case choices are. And what they are intended for. There's a great deal of confusion here. Conflicting(?) info is out there depending on where/when you read it. This will sus itself out soon as Sig gets better at the news releases on this gun. We hope.
Craig Miller
Well-Known Member
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:
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:
Go ahead. Take the lead. Your up.
wyrshunter1
Active Member
What is exciting about it. Its just a poor man's .270 from the sound of it. What does it do that a Browning BAR won't for hunting apps. Using .277 components and powder capacity its going to mean shooting a $1.50 a round at best so most of us aren't going to burn up much for than in our bolt guns. Once brass and primers become commonplace you can reload it cheaper but even then. If you have the money and can hide the cost from your wife to bulk shoot it you will be replacing barrels even if it gets decent life.
Not saying it wouldn't be fun to have around. New guns are great but I've got way to many fun bolt action toys to even get to shooting my boring ARs. And the form factor is just ackward for hunting anyway. Imagine trying to find a practical scabbard for that thing on your horse. Dittos for carrying it around.
On the other hand I'm sure I will find a good reason to buy one. Don't know why but it will happen. Then I'll probably have to have the $10,000 Vortex automatic hunter optic that goes with it. From the way they are talking that monstrosity up you'll just need to lie down take a nap, and it will shoot, quarter, and bring your elk back to camp.
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.
