The BaitShop Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FireArms, et cetera > Rifles and Muzzleloaders
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - .277 Fury
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

This site is completely supported by donations; there are no corporate sponsors. We would be honoured if you would consider a small donation, to be used exclusively for forum expenses.



Thank you, from the BaitShop Boyz!

.277 Fury

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Wing master View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
AKA StraightShooter

Joined: 10 June 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7062
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wing master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: .277 Fury
    Posted: 24 April 2022 at 19:43
I just read that our military has ok'd the adoption of the .277 Fury. Or as they call it the 6.8X51. 

Do any of you know anything about this round?

I don't know much at all but it looks like a .308 case necked down to a .277. It's supposed to make around 80,000 psi of pressure. If I remember right it has some kind of half steel half brass case to handle the pressure. 

Maybe our government needs to spend more of our tax dollars before they start to get moldy but I'm trying to figure out why this is better than a .308?
I have always considered myself to be quite the bullshitter, But ocasionally it is nice to sit back and listen to a true professional......So, Carry on.
Back to Top
jsgbearpaws1 View Drop Down
.416 Rigby
.416 Rigby
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3531
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jsgbearpaws1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 April 2022 at 22:27
Sig new offering. With the high threshold for hot loading. Yes it's a .308 necked down with a steel base and thicker wall down low. Supposed to be a shade over 3k fps and more accurate.....not sure how speed will help a basically AR style platform anymore then quality parts would, but hey, think of all the cool things now the military will have that the civilians can't. I doubt even a Ruger would handle it without issues arising. All this to save weight supposedly....even though it weighs basically the same as 7.62x51 NATO and shares the same capacity. The optics package makes the weight issue mute as it's a frickin lego set of cool/weight added to an already burdened package. Brandon Herrara does a nice breakdown on its development.......or should I say, what is known so far.

...oh yeah! thats gonna hurt!
Back to Top
BEAR View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 07 September 2013
Location: Appalachian Mtn
Status: Offline
Points: 12922
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BEAR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 April 2022 at 09:37
These re experimental designs.  DOD does this to give some money to arms supplier.  doubt anyone will give it a serious nod.
The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other in opposite directions.
Back to Top
Wing master View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
AKA StraightShooter

Joined: 10 June 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7062
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wing master Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 April 2022 at 22:09
It doesn't seem to me like it would be that much of a step up from the M-4. If any at all.
I have always considered myself to be quite the bullshitter, But ocasionally it is nice to sit back and listen to a true professional......So, Carry on.
Back to Top
stinky View Drop Down
.243 Winchester
.243 Winchester


Joined: 30 August 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 205
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stinky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 April 2022 at 22:51
They did not speak of bullet weight.

But, a .270, can push a 130 at 3,000fps....out of a shorter barrel.  3,100 out of a 22 incher.  That is pretty much twice the bullet weight of an M4, at the same speed. 

I have heard rumors that the M4 has the accuracy to hit folks at 500 yards, but it won't tear whatever it hits a new anus, like the above would.  And, that in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would hit stuff at those distances and the bullet didn't have the "Knock-Down" needed (They didn't find the body).

But, the only platfrom that could go on, is the M-14....assuming that it was built from scratch, as it is a shorter action than the '06 family.

Hence, a short .270 would fit in an AR10, M-14 and several others....which is what the Fury seems to be.  Although, there is darn little info provided.

The Army was working on a .270 in the M-1 when it was under development and Patton put the Ka-bosh on it (ended it, stuck w/thutty aught six)  which simplified supply issues....maybe.  I don't think the same machines built machine gun ammo (which comes in ball, AP, tracer, and maybe incendiary....in .30 Gubment or M2) and the same machines definitely did not put the ammo in Bloc Clips (for duh M1) and belts as that is a way dif process, and the same came differently (I assume), so that supply issue is a moot point.  If you were running low on ammo, you wouldn't steal from your machine gunner...maybe.  But, you would have to have had the Bloc Clips to do dat anyways, and those weren't usually picked up.  Sooooo, I'd have to see some more theories that supply issues were actually issues to believe that.  I am of the opinion that an M1 in .270 woulda been a good idea. 

I doens't make any sense....although, a rifle in .243, .260 does.  A small bullet, in those calibers is right around 3,000fps.

Muzzle blast is also an issue...in the top 3 things of things that we inherently/instinctively are afraid of, 1 of em is a loud BOOOM, another is stuff coming at you face (like a semi-auto pistols slide)...I forget what the 3rd is.  The average soldier can't shoot for nut'N, kick and boom are 2 reasons....hence we have the M4, which kicks less and is has less blast.
John 14:6
Back to Top
d4570 View Drop Down
.416 Rigby
.416 Rigby
Avatar

Joined: 27 January 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8531
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote d4570 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2022 at 07:23
Muzzle blast !

I shot a deer this year right at legal shooting time, laying down on a mound of dirt.

WOW!
There was no way I could have had a fallow up shot if I would have needed it. 
A fire ball the size of a small car and dirt, OMG dirt.
Not even counting the "BOOM".

Granted it was with my big 8 but very unnerving.

Remember: Four boxes keep us free ,the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, AND the cartridge box
Back to Top
jsgbearpaws1 View Drop Down
.416 Rigby
.416 Rigby
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3531
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jsgbearpaws1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 April 2022 at 14:26
.....scares the soldier when firing......hear to tell ya, it scares the sh** out of the ones being shot at as well!

Back in the early 60's, they turned our fighting men into wimps. Instead of "building men and soldier", they opted for building lighter and weaker weapons.

An AR-10/the original Stoner masterpiece. Stripped down is no heavier then any other rifle. Fitted with a proper muzzle device, it is quieter and has a significantly smaller blast. These devices can be used much like a muzzle break and reduce the recoil as well.

Funny how most of the wimping euro folks aren't intimidated by the 7.62x51 NATO round as a GOTO.....They just must be tougher I guess.
...oh yeah! thats gonna hurt!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.