Rogue-Nation Discussion Board
The Army's new rifle - Printable Version

+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Members Interests (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=90)
+--- Forum: Firearms & Related Topics (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=101)
+--- Thread: The Army's new rifle (/showthread.php?tid=2297)

Pages: 1 2


The Army's new rifle - 727Sky - 08-23-2024

Coming in at 12 pounds of manly weight, and each round of ammo costing $13 per pew pew what a wet dream weapon for the idiots in Washington procurement.

IMO you start getting a weapon heavier than 10 pounds it almost becomes a crewed weapon for a long march especially with all the other battle rattle crap you have to carry.. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VlbiIxu7Hj4?feature=share


RE: The Army's new rifle - Ninurta - 08-23-2024

12 pounds of rifle is just too much rifle. You've already got around 80 pounds of ruck on your back, and I think most of the vests these days carry around 10 magazines, 30 rounds apiece. I dunno what this 13 dollar round weighs, but 300 of them (plus the 30 already in your rifle) have got to weigh plenty. Hell, the MOLLE rig I have here weighs about 25 pounds all by itself, empty. No need to add extra unnecessary weight to a load like that.

The rifle itself looks to me like a Buck-Rogers-ized AR anyhow. No excuse for that extra weight. What the hell does the average trooper need with a sound suppressor? That's just another pound of useless weight for them to carry. They'll eventually have to give each trooper his own robot too, in order to carry all the useless crap they insist has to be carried.

Personally, I think if they went back to the old M16A1 with a 12 inch rifling twist and M193 ball ammo, they'd be good to go. They've been screwing with the AR platform for 40 years now trying to make it "more lethal", and have only succeeded in making it LESS lethal... so now they have to go with this new crap? Just wait until they get done making it "more lethal" too.

Procurement and testing very often runs a shit-show all it's own. I have an idea - teach troopers to hit their target with whatever they happen to have to hand instead of saddling them with even more junk that they don't need... fanciest gun in the world ain't gonna do you any good at all if you have a habit of shooting over their heads instead of into their heads. On the other hand, a Sears Special will do the trick if you drop some lead in their head from it.

By teach them to hit their target" I mean just that. I think it's around 10% or 15% of soldiers that will actually shoot to kill. The rest just shoot to scare. There is a world of difference between shooting a paper target on the range and shooting at a living, breathing one trying to shoot you right back. People get jittery about that, which IMO is an issue that could be addressed in training.

My Dear Old Dad had a system for training - "Here's five shells. that's all ya get. Either bring back all 5, or enough pieces game to account for the missing shells. if ya don't, next time you only get 3. You ain't wasting all MY ammo!"

.


RE: The Army's new rifle - 727Sky - 09-18-2024

The Army's new XM-7 rifle which shoots bullets that cost somewhere between 12 to 15+ dollars per round is actually receiving good feed back from the troops. Good solid Optics and a bullet able to penetrate light armored vehicles and body armor seems to be a win win. Of course the positive feed back is mostly from approved blogs and articles.



RE: The Army's new rifle - Schmoe - 09-18-2024

(08-23-2024, 10:48 AM)Ninurta Wrote: 12 pounds of rifle is just too much rifle. You've already got around 80 pounds of ruck on your back, and I think most of the vests these days carry around 10 magazines, 30 rounds apiece. I dunno what this 13 dollar round weighs, but 300 of them (plus the 30 already in your rifle) have got to weigh plenty. Hell, the MOLLE rig I have here weighs about 25 pounds all by itself, empty. No need to add extra unnecessary weight to a load like that.

The rifle itself looks to me like a Buck-Rogers-ized AR anyhow. No excuse for that extra weight. What the hell does the average trooper need with a sound suppressor? That's just another pound of useless weight for them to carry. They'll eventually have to give each trooper his own robot too, in order to carry all the useless crap they insist has to be carried.

Personally, I think if they went back to the old M16A1 with a 12 inch rifling twist and M193 ball ammo, they'd be good to go. They've been screwing with the AR platform for 40 years now trying to make it "more lethal", and have only succeeded in making it LESS lethal... so now they have to go with this new crap? Just wait until they get done making it "more lethal" too.

Procurement and testing very often runs a shit-show all it's own. I have an idea - teach troopers to hit their target with whatever they happen to have to hand instead of saddling them with even more junk that they don't need... fanciest gun in the world ain't gonna do you any good at all if you have a habit of shooting over their heads instead of into their heads. On the other hand, a Sears Special will do the trick if you drop some lead in their head from it.

By teach them to hit their target" I mean just that. I think it's around 10% or 15% of soldiers that will actually shoot to kill. The rest just shoot to scare. There is a world of difference between shooting a paper target on the range and shooting at a living, breathing one trying to shoot you right back. People get jittery about that, which IMO is an issue that could be addressed in training.

My Dear Old Dad had a system for training - "Here's five shells. that's all ya get. Either bring back all 5, or enough pieces game to account for the missing shells. if ya don't, next time you only get 3. You ain't wasting all MY ammo!"

.

I can understand the suppressor for a small reconnaissance unit, but infantry?  Makes no sense, though knowing the government, they'll say they saved money on hearing protection by simply equipping all rifles with a suppressor.

That equals more maintenance too, as suppressors get nice and dirty, quickly.  Along with the rest of the rifle.  Do they also have to use subsonic ammo to even make the suppressor functional?  It's not an integrated suppressor, like the MP5SD.


RE: The Army's new rifle - SomeJackleg - 09-19-2024

12 pounds what the hell is it made of, or is it all the new fancy optics and shit they put on them now days?  and at 13.00 bucks a round, with 10 30rd mags, and say a 200 round bandolier that comes to 6500 bucks worth of ammo combat load per Marine, Seal Trooper.

you know when i was in the Corps and even before i could shoot the gnats off a fleas ass on a dog ass at 200 yards or bust squirrels and rabbits in the head on the run with iron sights with a .22. all for less than 20 bucks.

if they want a more lethal AR just go / stick with the AR 10. and teach soldiers how to shoot with just iron sights. 

but no it's all about fancy and dollar signs now days.

you know i just realized how old i'm getting. you don't hardly see any troops carrying bandoliers anymore like we did.


RE: The Army's new rifle - Infolurker - 09-19-2024

I mean... really? 

Go back to 308 / Nato 7.62 x 51

Is the new stuff THAT much better to justify the obscene x20 cost of the ammunition. Is it 20X better than 308? I bet not.


RE: The Army's new rifle - Ninurta - 09-19-2024

(09-18-2024, 07:41 AM)727Sky Wrote: The Army's new XM-7 rifle which shoots bullets that cost somewhere between 12 to 15+ dollars per round is actually receiving good feed back from the troops. Good solid Optics and a bullet able to penetrate light armored vehicles and body armor seems to be a win win. Of course the positive feed back is mostly from approved blogs and articles.

Well that video was just too cute by half! I remember seeing the same claims made about the M16. For example, I recall seeing a demonstration where a cinder block wall was reduced to rubble using only a stock M16A1 and the old M193 ball ammo.

Damn near doubling the weight of your weapon while simultaneously halving the amount of ammo you can carry for it makes me think they might be trying to redefine the phrase "light  infantry".

The weapon itself looks to me like it's just a beefed-up M4 (apparently beefed up to be able to handle this new "monster" round), so I don't really see any significant advantage there, either.

Also, I think it is a really bad mistake for the US to start sourcing it's primary weapons from foreign manufacturers - Sig-Sauer in this case. I can't think of any nation in the history of the world that has survived for long after it started relying on foreign sources to supply it's most basic war fighting needs. Never a good idea to put your life and survival in the hands of a potential adversary, no matter how friendly they might appear to be today.

The video mentions a 3 minute of angle group that the weapon is capable of, which to my way of thinking is pretty dismal for an out of the box weapon. My AR shoots 1 MOA - 3 times more accurate than this overweight beast of a weapon. My bolt action rifle shoots 1/2 MOA. To spread those groups out to 3 MOA is sad... just really sad.... It doesn't matter how many feet steel a bullet can pierce at a billion yards if you can't even hit that steel with the bullet.

The optic is ridonkulous. It appears to be designed to "idiot-proof" the aiming procedure, but what happens when your shit goes dead or just plain breaks, and no one got trained on or has possession of any real sights?

On the positive side, if the military decides to start wasting our tax dollars on this bludgeon of a rifle, then it ought to release several billion rounds of 5.56 ammo into the surplus market as this new 15 dollar a round crap starts filtering in to military procurement channels. No real down side there! Well, except for the poor soldiers that have to carry these bricks around all day...

Another plus is that if everyone thinks this round is going to turn their pretty armor into butter, then maybe more folks will stop wearing those turtle-shells and exponentially increase their own maneuverability.

BUT - the army can do what the hell ever it likes. Every day that goes by, I am more and more glad that I'll not have to deal with the blunders they make now.

No damned wonder they have such a hard-on to take away folks' AR's. They don't want civilians to be better armed than "the world's best military" after they get done painting it pink and sticking a rose up it's ass!

.


RE: The Army's new rifle - Schmoe - 09-19-2024

(09-19-2024, 10:39 PM)Ninurta Wrote:
(09-18-2024, 07:41 AM)727Sky Wrote: The Army's new XM-7 rifle which shoots bullets that cost somewhere between 12 to 15+ dollars per round is actually receiving good feed back from the troops. Good solid Optics and a bullet able to penetrate light armored vehicles and body armor seems to be a win win. Of course the positive feed back is mostly from approved blogs and articles.

Well that video was just too cute by half! I remember seeing the same claims made about the M16. For example, I recall seeing a demonstration where a cinder block wall was reduced to rubble using only a stock M16A1 and the old M193 ball ammo.

Damn near doubling the weight of your weapon while simultaneously halving the amount of ammo you can carry for it makes me think they might be trying to redefine the phrase "light  infantry".

The weapon itself looks to me like it's just a beefed-up M4 (apparently beefed up to be able to handle this new "monster" round), so I don't really see any significant advantage there, either.

Also, I think it is a really bad mistake for the US to start sourcing it's primary weapons from foreign manufacturers - Sig-Sauer in this case. I can't think of any nation in the history of the world that has survived for long after it started relying on foreign sources to supply it's most basic war fighting needs. Never a good idea to put your life and survival in the hands of a potential adversary, no matter how friendly they might appear to be today.

The video mentions a 3 minute of angle group that the weapon is capable of, which to my way of thinking is pretty dismal for an out of the box weapon. My AR shoots 1 MOA - 3 times more accurate than this overweight beast of a weapon. My bolt action rifle shoots 1/2 MOA. To spread those groups out to 3 MOA is sad... just really sad.... It doesn't matter how many feet steel a bullet can pierce at a billion yards if you can't even hit that steel with the bullet.

The optic is ridonkulous. It appears to be designed to "idiot-proof" the aiming procedure, but what happens when your shit goes dead or just plain breaks, and no one got trained on or has possession of any real sights?

On the positive side, if the military decides to start wasting our tax dollars on this bludgeon of a rifle, then it ought to release several billion rounds of 5.56 ammo into the surplus market as this new 15 dollar a round crap starts filtering in to military procurement channels. No real down side there! Well, except for the poor soldiers that have to carry these bricks around all day...

Another plus is that if everyone thinks this round is going to turn their pretty armor into butter, then maybe more folks will stop wearing those turtle-shells and exponentially increase their own maneuverability.

BUT - the army can do what the hell ever it likes. Every day that goes by, I am more and more glad that I'll not have to deal with the blunders they make now.

No damned wonder they have such a hard-on to take away folks' AR's. They don't want civilians to be better armed than "the world's best military" after they get done painting it pink and sticking a rose up it's ass!

.

Haven't you seen the movie Edge of Tomorrow?  DARPA is making super-strength exoskeletons for every soldier, even carrying a minigun like Jesse Ventura in Predator will be a breeze  Laughing


RE: The Army's new rifle - Snarl - 09-20-2024

(09-19-2024, 03:04 AM)Infolurker Wrote: I mean... really? 

Go back to 308 / Nato 7.62 x 51

Is the new stuff THAT much better to justify the obscene x20 cost of the ammunition. Is it 20X better than 308? I bet not.

There will be a lot more weight in that ammo and a lot less of it in any given magazine. Looks like a 20rd mag is standard.

A buddy of mine got a barrel chambered in 6.8 so as to see what all the fuss was about. He double-tapped a deer with it last year. Kills just like a .308.

I've got enough 7.62 and 5.56 ammo to last me the rest of my life and carry my sons for quite a while if necessary. Anyone who doesn't maybe ought'a start stockpiling some for themselves. My guess is the 6.8 was adopted to make the 5.56 obsolete.


RE: The Army's new rifle - 727Sky - 09-28-2024

Quote:The HK-416 rifle is quietly taking over the world as one of the most widely used primary weapon systems! This all started back In 2007 when Norway was the first country to widely adopt it for their conventional force, grabbing more than 60,000 rifles. Fast forward ten years and In 2016 France began swapping out their FAMAS for the when they placed just a massive Cosco size bulk order of 117,000 rifles. Now they were on a rolls because only A year later in 2017 the entire United States Marine corps switched to the HK416. They’ve since acquired 14,000 of these rifles to their front line combat roles. But you might not have heard about it because they made tiny adjustments to the weapon and renamed it to the M27 IAR, Norway put an N at the end of the name and France tossed an F to throw us all off. If it looks like a duck quacks like a duck and shoots like an HK416 then it's probably an HK416. The rabbit hole gets even deeper as we continue to dig. By 2021 the German military made the call to switch to the HK416 by ordering 118,000 of the rifles. But they named it to the G95A1 but it’s basically the same exact weapon with some minor improvements and upgrades. That’s a grand total of at least 309,000 rifles ordered under one name or another. That's not even including the dozen or so special forces units who run the weapon - which means it's found in at least 30 different countries.






RE: The Army's new rifle - F2d5thCav - 10-08-2024

@ 727Sky

My memories of the Cold War.  The '60 was considered okay and Ma Deuce was already a saint that had equipped the troops since the 1920s.

The M16A1 was still referred to as a "Mattel product" and was considered to have too many parts.  We envied how an AK could be broken down into three large parts for battlefield cleaning.  Soviets understood the battlefield is a dirty, chaotic environment.

The Dragon guided missile was considered a suicide weapon because of its short range and blast signature.  We had little faith in the LAW missiles.  Too small to stop Soviet tanks with typical shot opportunities.

The 40mm grenade launchers worked well.  A talented soldier could drop the grenades at almost any angle.

Cheers

One HK seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK416#/media/File:Legionnaires.jpg

Note the name of the operation mentioned.

That is the now never-ending commitment of fully TEN PERCENT of the French Army to "internal security" duties WITHIN France.  Something something about a restless minority there.

The Brits went through that experience during the "Troubles".  A constant grind on the armed forces of a country and that much of the force that isn't available to confront other countries.

Cheers


RE: The Army's new rifle - SomeJackleg - 10-08-2024

i heard that they got a new rifle out their calling it the undocumented. most don't work, and you can't fire them.


RE: The Army's new rifle - 727Sky - 05-13-2025

When the rifle first came out there were glowing propaganda reports about what a fine weapon it was... This latest report reminds me of the M-16 issued to the troops in Vietnam which at first was also a POS that got our troops killed. It is a heavy weapon which means it is slow on target and the suppressor after a few 100 rounds washes out your night vision goggles due to heat glow.



RE: The Army's new rifle - Ninurta - 05-14-2025

(05-13-2025, 10:28 PM)727Sky Wrote: When the rifle first came out there were glowing propaganda reports about what a fine weapon it was... This latest report reminds me of the M-16 issued to the troops in Vietnam which at first was also a POS that got our troops killed. It is a heavy weapon which means it is slow on target and the suppressor after a few 100 rounds washes out your night vision goggles due to heat glow.

While I believe most of the criticisms presented are deadly accurate, with the emphasis on deadly - as in it'll get a lot of troops needlessly killed - I think Cappy made a slight error on his accuracy calculations. 4 MOA is not "accuracy" at all. It's what we used to call "slop shots".

If the Army is only requiring 4 MOA in it's weapons now, it needs to correspondingly increase the body bag orders.

1 MOA is about an inch at 100 yards. That's an angular measurement from the point of aim, not accounting for the direction the shot flies. so a 1 MOA rifle should drop around 90-95% of it's shots into a two inch circle - 1 inch radius from the point of aim in any direction. Therefore, a 4 MOA rifle would drop it's shots into an EIGHT inch circle (4" radius from point of aim in all directions), not a 4 inch circle as Cappy said. I'm sure that was just an oversight on his part.

A 4 MOA accuracy will have a 48 inch circle of hit probability at 600 yards (24 inch radius - 4 MOA X 600 yards). That translates into a lot of misses on a man-sized target, typically about 18-24 inches wide. 600 meters is about 660 yards, so that circle will increase correspondingly for 600 meters, to about 53 inches.

The increase in caliber necessitates a decrease in ammo carrying capacity, because bigger ammo weighs more. The doctrinal standard combat load for 5.56 was 210 rounds - 7 30 round magazines full. I usually carried 340 rounds (10 30 round magazines + 1 40 round magazine), which was a lot of damned ammo weight, but less likelihood of running out of ammo in an extended firefight. Long range patrols usually carried from 400 to 600 rounds, because you were farther out from help, and out there longer. a 140 round combat load wouldn't even get you outside the perimeter, which - along with the weight of the rifle itself - was one of the main gripes against the M-14.

Speaking of rifle weight, there is only so much that one man can carry. a 13 1/2 pound rifle means that you can carry a lot less ammo for it. Just sayin'... That's roughly 5 or 6 pounds less ammo you can carry over a reasonably weighted rifle. and 13 1/2 pounds is WAY too damned much weight for a rifle with a stubby little tiny 13 inch barrel. With a barrel that short, no wonder the can on the end is getting so overheated - practically the whole damned fireball is being used to heat the suppressor rather than throw the bullet! There is no logical physics explanation for why a cartridge that big would be matched to a barrel that short.

Might as well just issue the troops fire hoses and call them "water cannons" to knock the enemy on their ass with.

Then there is the physics of that 2 piece casing. what a waste! Common sense of the physics variety dictates that with a two piece casing, there is more to go wrong, and there has to be an inherent weak spot at the case joint. Not something someone sensible would care to bet their life on, I would think.

They can issue all the elephant guns they like. My money will stay with a AR in 5.56 or an AK in 5.45, both of which have sub 2 MOA accuracies. They're not sniper rifles by any means, but close enough for government work when lives depend on hits. Also, I don't care to have American soldiers betting their lives on foreign weapons, like Sigs or FN's. Those are very fine rifles for mercenary contracts, but American soldiers ought by rights to be carrying weapons made by American companies. How is America supposed to get great again by thowing all it's money overseas on foreign weapons? Buy American!

But that's just my thinking. Apparently other folks' mileage will vary.


RE: The Army's new rifle - 727Sky - 05-14-2025

I did see when they were first fielding the rifle that each round cost $13 US... I really do hope DOGE gets into the insane procurement and waste at the DOD... The old spend it or lose it has been around since I can remember and is still in effect. Who approves this stuff other than someone lining their pockets !!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/18/usa.ewenmacaskill1&ved=2ahUKEwiOz7f68KKNAxUVs1YBHft6BesQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0TMkp-ZIv33IbJgv-g_eFk

Quote:Plumbers may have been blamed before for excessive bills. But none has come close to matching an extravagant claim by a South Carolina firm: almost $1 million (£500,000) for two metal washers worth 19 cents each.
Charlene Corley, 47, co-owner of the plumbing and electrical firm C&D Distributors, who supplied parts to the US military, is awaiting sentence after pleading guilty on Thursday to defrauding the Pentagon. She faces 20 years in jail.

The most expensive washers in history were part of $20.5 million C&D Distributors stole from the Pentagon over the past 10 years. The company shipped plumbing and electrical parts to US bases around the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Using an automated system intended to cut red tape, the company repeatedly added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of shipping parts.
C&D Distributors claimed $998,798 for sending the two washers, which could have been posted through normal mail for a few pounds.
Corley used the money for luxury homes, cars, plastic surgery and jewellery. She admitted her role in the fraud but lawyers placed most of the blame on her sister and co-owner, Darlene, who committed suicide in October after being approached by investigators.
Other bills included $445,640 for shipping one elbow pipe worth $8.75, $492,096 for a machine thread plug, and $403,436 for six screws worth $59.94.



RE: The Army's new rifle - Bally002 - 05-14-2025

(05-14-2025, 11:54 AM)727Sky Wrote: I did see when they were first fielding the rifle that each round cost $13 US... I really do hope DOGE gets into the insane procurement and waste at the DOD... The old spend it or lose it has been around since I can remember and is still in effect. Who approves this stuff other than someone lining their pockets !!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/18/usa.ewenmacaskill1&ved=2ahUKEwiOz7f68KKNAxUVs1YBHft6BesQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0TMkp-ZIv33IbJgv-g_eFk

Quote:Plumbers may have been blamed before for excessive bills. But none has come close to matching an extravagant claim by a South Carolina firm: almost $1 million (£500,000) for two metal washers worth 19 cents each.
Charlene Corley, 47, co-owner of the plumbing and electrical firm C&D Distributors, who supplied parts to the US military, is awaiting sentence after pleading guilty on Thursday to defrauding the Pentagon. She faces 20 years in jail.

The most expensive washers in history were part of $20.5 million C&D Distributors stole from the Pentagon over the past 10 years. The company shipped plumbing and electrical parts to US bases around the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Using an automated system intended to cut red tape, the company repeatedly added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of shipping parts.
C&D Distributors claimed $998,798 for sending the two washers, which could have been posted through normal mail for a few pounds.
Corley used the money for luxury homes, cars, plastic surgery and jewellery. She admitted her role in the fraud but lawyers placed most of the blame on her sister and co-owner, Darlene, who committed suicide in October after being approached by investigators.
Other bills included $445,640 for shipping one elbow pipe worth $8.75, $492,096 for a machine thread plug, and $403,436 for six screws worth $59.94.

Crikey!  People just get greedy and it's not worth your life.  I sell pumpkins for $2.50 each.  Couldn't think of shipping them for 250,000 per veg.

Regards,

Bally)


RE: The Army's new rifle - 727Sky - 05-14-2025

(05-14-2025, 12:23 PM)Bally002 Wrote:
(05-14-2025, 11:54 AM)727Sky Wrote: I did see when they were first fielding the rifle that each round cost $13 US... I really do hope DOGE gets into the insane procurement and waste at the DOD... The old spend it or lose it has been around since I can remember and is still in effect. Who approves this stuff other than someone lining their pockets !!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/18/usa.ewenmacaskill1&ved=2ahUKEwiOz7f68KKNAxUVs1YBHft6BesQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0TMkp-ZIv33IbJgv-g_eFk

Quote:Plumbers may have been blamed before for excessive bills. But none has come close to matching an extravagant claim by a South Carolina firm: almost $1 million (£500,000) for two metal washers worth 19 cents each.
Charlene Corley, 47, co-owner of the plumbing and electrical firm C&D Distributors, who supplied parts to the US military, is awaiting sentence after pleading guilty on Thursday to defrauding the Pentagon. She faces 20 years in jail.

The most expensive washers in history were part of $20.5 million C&D Distributors stole from the Pentagon over the past 10 years. The company shipped plumbing and electrical parts to US bases around the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Using an automated system intended to cut red tape, the company repeatedly added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of shipping parts.
C&D Distributors claimed $998,798 for sending the two washers, which could have been posted through normal mail for a few pounds.
Corley used the money for luxury homes, cars, plastic surgery and jewellery. She admitted her role in the fraud but lawyers placed most of the blame on her sister and co-owner, Darlene, who committed suicide in October after being approached by investigators.
Other bills included $445,640 for shipping one elbow pipe worth $8.75, $492,096 for a machine thread plug, and $403,436 for six screws worth $59.94.

Crikey!  People just get greedy and it's not worth your life.  I sell pumpkins for $2.50 each.  Couldn't think of shipping them for 250,000 per veg.

Regards,

Bally)
IMO Very little honor or morals left in some people


RE: The Army's new rifle - FCD - 05-14-2025

Leave it to the Army to create something where a need doesn't exist!  This is a perfect example of lobbying run amok.

The .277 Fury (6.8 x 51mm), which the XM7 fires, is essentially a .308 case firing a .27 caliber bullet.  Ballistics wise, it doesn't have a lot of benefit out to about 500m.  Most people can't shoot that far anyway.  In fact, very few can shoot that far with any accuracy.  And, that's under normal conditions.  In a high stress battle scenario, under direct fire, most accuracy beyond 100m is unreliable in real world situations.  Doesn't matter what you can do at the range; on the battlefield is where the rubber meets the road.

Out past 500m the .277 Fury has a little flatter trajectory with slightly higher velocity.  Energy differences are negligible between the .277 and .308.  If anything, the .308 actually has the advantage here, with slightly less velocity and maybe 1" more drop.  You've got to get out to 700m-750m before the .277 starts to show any measurable differences ballistics wise.  Even then we're talking about a delta of about 8".  One troop out of a thousand "might" be able to shoot that far with any degree of accuracy.  (just being realistic here).

So, the Army has endorsed a round which is a non-standard round in a world where the .308 has long existed and performs nearly identically to the .277 for all practical purposes.  And, they've put it into a rifle which is fully 3.5lbs heavier.  That's a LOT!  I'm even being generous here too, using nominal weight of 9 lbs for the XM7 versus 6 lbs for the M16 or 7.5 lbs for the FN SCAR (now being issued to some SOCOM troops).  The more likely weight for the XM7 is on the order of 10.5 lbs fully fitted with a suppressor and a full magazine.

The terminal ballistics for the .277, .308, and even the 5.56 are nearly identical out to 300m-350m, with the 5.56 having much less energy simply due to the reduced mass (obviously).

Bottom line...This adoption of the XM7 and .277 Fury, if it really does happen, makes exactly zero sense.  If anything, it's a step backwards for the troops in the field.  (but some general will get a swimming pool out of the deal, that's for sure.  Probably a whole lot more than that!).


RE: The Army's new rifle - FCD - 05-15-2025

BTW...the .227 Fury is basically a wildcat cartridge developed by SIG originally.  In fact, SAAMI even calls it the ".277 SIG Fury".

Like many rifle manufacturers, SIG developed this cartridge for one purpose...to sell more new rifles.  There are more manufacturer wildcats out there than you can shake a stick at for this exact reason.  It's not because the round performs any better than another standardized and mass produced military round.  No, it's because they'll tell you it performs better, BUT you have to go buy a whole new rifle to find out.  Almost all of the 'ultra-mags' fall into this category.  They have a counterpart which has nearly the same terminal ballistics, but you have to go buy a new action to chamber the shorter round.  Anyone who requires that much extra time and effort chambering a round which is 5mm+/- longer in the same caliber probably shouldn't be firing that weapon anyway.  We're talking fractions of a second here.  

Needless to say, I am not a fan of these specialized rounds which really only serve one purpose...making you buy a new rifle.  This is one area where the outdoor publications and firearms rags really show their manufacturer biases and influence.  They're always hyping these rounds as something special, but when you study the actual ballistics, they're just the same cat in a different coat.

Case in point...how long ago did the 6.5 Creedmoor start showing up in all the sports mags as the ultimate "gotta' have" round?  What, maybe 20+ years ago?  Yet 6.5 Creedmoor ammo is still 50% more than other similar ammo.  It's all just a money game.  All of my 7.62x63mm, 7.62x51mm, 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm ammo works just fine.  Though I will admit to owning a .22-250 for specific applications, and some might argue that the 5.56x45mm could satisfy this niche, but I do see some advantages in the larger powder capacity of the .22-250 at long distances.

For most people who just buy ammunition from the store, they'll never notice nearly any of the differences I've noted in this post and the one above it.  Most will rarely ever get a rifle sighted in well enough, using consistent ammo, to realize these finer points.  I reload all my own ammunition, so I can get two rounds and even a whole box pretty damn close to the same ballistics, round to round.  And there are guys WAY better than me.


RE: The Army's new rifle - F2d5thCav - 05-15-2025

Had to laugh the other day.  A friend of mine who was a "Cobra" pilot told me they called the 2.75-inch folding fin aerial rockets "wonder rockets" ... because once they launched, one wondered where they would land  Big Grin

MinusculeCheers