The contract overrun 6.8x51mm with the 113-grain all copper bullet is the XM1188 Reduced Ranged Ammunition (RRA). Aeroballistics Division at Picatinny designed the RRA to replicate roughly 50% the ballistic trajectory of the General Purpose (GP) XM1186 cartridge, which has the reversed drawn copper jacket and steel penetrator design as the M855A1 and M80A1. The RRA bullet has a flat base copper projectile which has a BC of ~ 0.33. RRA are used at Army ranges for training. XM1188 RRA are loaded to the hot 80K psi pressures as the XM1186 tactical rounds but due to the projo's "inefficient aeroballistic design", it can be used at standard ranges without unduly modifying the surface danger zones (SDZs) of those established ranges.
I had not seen the pressures of the RRA. I thought it likely that it was loaded to a lower pressure to reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Where did you find the pressure number?
@@PwntifexMaximus Not really. The Army needs to train somewhere and most of the rifle ranges in he US have surface danger zones designed for the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45. The high BC 6.8x51 combat round flies too far and ricochets too much to be used at them. It is also rough on barrels and targets. Instead, the Army will mainly train with the 113 grain Reduced Range Training Round which works well to 600m or so, but is designed to become vey draggy at transonic and subsonic speeds limit range. It is used just for training. SIG pulled a fast one by calling it "ball" ammo rather than training ammo, so some people have been fooled.
Had the opportunity to talk to some of the army marksmanship support team and they had been testing the 6.8x51 and we're very impressed with what they could get the cartridge to do.
Yes, but that’s not what this video is about. It’s about his personal experience. The military can tell you whatever but it’s just coming from a private citizen and honestly more trust worthy not to discredit the military but videos like this go more in depth and more informational
@@vicdiaz5180A civilian that is making money from views is never going to be "more trustworthy" than a soldier that has only his life at stake when judging a weapon. Nothing against Tim, but he has just one rifle as a sample for group sizes, versus the military units that have hundreds of M7s available.
277 sells at the cheapest at around 90 cents a round, so figure yes, on average, you're over a buck a round at this point. If Trump by some miracle gets in and stops the idiotic Ukrainian and Middle East wars, maybe we'll finally get 7.62 NATO (308) back to 50 cents a round again (Walmart used to sell Turkish 7.62 for that price when he was President).
@@armorers_wrench Debatable. I like to hunt with my AR10 as well and .308 offers way more hunting loads compared to 6.5. On top of that, the barrel life is significantly better. When you buy ammo by the case, an extra .10-.20 cent per round adds up fast. To each their own
There no good reason for civilians to but the 277 Fury Spear as it's the cartridge only for the 120 000 strong Close Combat Forces of the US Army. The full brass GP round ... performs like a 7mm08 which competes with the 308 already. See. No need at all to get a 277 Fury rifle. Sig messed up basing the Fury on the 308 case size & length. The 277 Fury should have been AR length but still in a 308 case. The full brass GP round would perform better than the 6.5 GR and the SP Steel head SP round would perform "close to" 6.5 Creedmore. And everybody especially other Nato members would have gone gaga over the new US Army 6.8 CC.
The Spear 308 variant I ran resulted in .899 with 168FGMM and .953 with M118LR ... both 6-shot groups ... with M80 ball it did 2.919 group but that was 15 shots ... the platform is very accurate and handles heat like a boss ... well done Sig especially since this is a semi-QD barrel attachment method.
Vertical strings are due to differences in speed of the ammo or air in lung of the shooter. Lateral movements are caused by the shooter's trigger pull. A natural barrel whip is circular in nature, and much more uniform in deviation. This is considering ammo is seated cocentric in the brass as well as the chamber.
@@MagicPrepper People just started paying attention, statistics haven't changed. I'm glad that one time you were able to achieve that group. One time, my buddy's Mosin was also able to achieve 0.5MOA. Every other time, it was a 5-8 MOA rifle, but one time... one time...
@@mrnukeduster My understanding is that some manufacturers base their rifle's achievable accuracy on running standardized tests similar to this format: 10x 5 round groups, lowest and highest MOA groups are removed and remaining are taken as the average. I don't think there is anything wrong with a 10 round grouping but I did feel the need to comment on the fact that for years it seemed 5 was acceptable as a general consensus. However, within the last few years the sudden demand for 10 round groups has been a noticeable difference. And of course, if I were to achieve a sub-moa 10 round group, what's to prevent the same logic from being applied that it was "just that once"?
I would love to see a wide range of tests of the real world difference in applications involving cover and concealment. We all know that .308 turns cover into concealment. Does the velocity of the .277 mean it will have a harder time punching through and delivering actual damage? I think this is a great DMR role cartridge.... Idk about the grunts. A lot of them dump their load in the first 2 minutes anyway.
I wish people would stop using 3 shot groups, it's almost completely statically meaningles. Especially when people shoot like 10 groups and pick the best. That's not how things work.
@@Nathan-jh1ho I know this isn't a hunting video. But for hunting the 3 shot groups make sense cause if your shooting more than 3 times at a animal you shouldn't be hunting but for matches or long range 5 shot groups or more is the way to go
Love those ftlb numbers. This basically means we need a new 13” rifle with a freaking expensive new 6.8x51 because we hate 7.62x51 bullpups like the Tavor 7. Same energy, already battle proven. Progress in the firearms industry is just amazing 😂
I know I’m gonna come off like a dick, but we didn’t see him shoot the gun and he has a very close relationship with Sig. sig gives him all of his rifles
With the cost to produce and how advanced the technology is in barrel manufacturing, the Spear should be just as or more accurate than the HK417(M110A1) or the SR25(M110).
People vastly overestimate how accurate their rifles are. They will shoot a 3 shot group and claim sub moa accuracy when its typically not true. Try to get a 10 round sub moa group with a gas gun, its not as common as people think. Id say that gun is a shooter, 1.5 moa is great.
One thing I'll give Sig credit on is they got a civilian version of this rifle released really quite soon after the Army announced they were using this gun. If h& k had won this contract they would have gatekept their rifle for decades pretending like it was some super secret lazer rifle or something
I don't think people understand that you don't always want the highest possible pressures and FPS when it comes to the getting best 'accuracy' out of a cartridge. Consistency is what makes 'match' ammo what it is, the ability to be repeatable and dial in a scope is what sets it apart from standard military ball.
Yes, consistency matters. I tell reloaders this all the time. If you want accurate ammo. Standard deviation is the number that's most important. The lower the SD the better.
I can easily increase the pressure by shoving the bullet deeper into the case. Higher psi = more risk of explosive gun. I'm not sure if the sig even has enough gas vent safeties.
This is why the Army has been working with sig over the past two years to figure out the best loads & bullets for SP high pressure steel head ammo. Army is satisfied with the accuracy of the full brass GP rounds which is equivalent to the 7mm 08.
So not sure if you have the distance to test this but I have been told one of the advantages of the new cartridge is it pushes the transsonic zone out past 1200 yards.
What about testing controlability while shooting rapidly, as compared to 5.56 and 308. Maybe a bill drill. Because one of the complaints is with the extra weight and recoil.
In my experience, most rufle/ cartridges that shoot the highest velocities are less accurate than the same shooting at lower velocities. Of course there are a few exceptions to this.
The Xm-7 will likely be a great weapon for certain conflict zones, which is most likely why the sig offering beat the others. The manual of arms is basically the same as the m4 and other variants so the soldiers can transition easily between the two depending on combat zones and mission tasks.
I agree. If there's a problem, it's that it is probably not well-suited for the CQB of urban warfare. So, right now, I can't see it fully replacing the M4. The M4, for all its shortcomings, is very well suited to handle the full spectrum of short-to-mid-range small-arms combat.
@@MrLeoAtrox this is true for our current conflicts with small, disorganized forces. I wonder how the m4 will fare in cqb with a force with comparable training/equipment. 5.56 is already stopped by many commercially available body armor kits.
If they use the shorter barrels and keep weight down, CQB won’t be an issue with it. Urban can be a problem. Especially working around civilians with something this barrier blind.
I am reloading this cartridge for a AR10 that I built. Of course I can not shoot the hybrid case ammo. The barrel is a 20in 1:7 twist X-caliber barrel. With factory 135gr FMJ I am seeing 2990-3000 fps, but it is very tough on the brass and will pop the primer. So very high pressure stuff. With the 130 gr hunting ammo I am recording 2940 fps. FMJ is a 1-2 MOA accurate and the 130 hunting is 1 MOA and I have no pressure signs. I hand loaded a 130 Nosler Accubond and settled on a load that was sub 1 MOA with a SD of 6.5 and FPS at 2944. I did load higher and got 2990-3000 fps with this bullet but accuracy got worse. As much as I would like a Spear in 6.8x51, I don’t know if it would be worth it just to shoot the $2.80 a round ammo. I have a Spear in 7.62x51 and will stick with it. I am interested in the bolt action Cross though.
Really reminds me of my 260 remington shooting a 156 grain berger.The case capacity was always better suited to a little lighter bullet thoe like the 143 hornady witch is my go to load for everything out 1600 yds. 2950 fps out of a 24" bolt gun. The case is almost identical in dimensions and i understand this fury with the high pressure case will handle those heavier bullets but i feel it would really shine with a bullet in the mid 140's going probably 3200 plus.
Now they need to make a bi-metal 308 at 80k that can shoot the 175-200gr stuff at 150gr velocities or more. Kind of a 300 wsm for the modern age. Im also curious how this comes into play with reloading? Federal has the steel case back country that they say can be reloaded but have not seen specifics on what changes or special dies might be required or case life. Excited to see how this new high pressure rabbit hole plays out
The FPS on the box at range is super important when dealing with body armor at range. Yes, the ammunition is not AP, but the penetration level is based on speed. It looks like an AP round could penetrate level III armor at 100 yards or closer. That's weak for the whole selling point of the cartridge. It should be penetrating Level 4 at 100 yards. It would still most likely go through an army helmet at 500 yards.
How about doing some X rounds in a timed period (usually a minute). There is standard test we had to do yearly as a member of the Swiss Army (you kept your service rifle at home during your off periods and virtually every town or village has a 300m shooting range; the Swiss Army is similar to the US Army Reserve). I did the Obligatory Shooting Test every year in my village. The timed test was 10 shots in 1 minute at 300m. Also, we had NO OPTICS (standard diopter sight on my SIG 510/FASS 57). How about doing the same with your Spear? Keep the optics but do it at 300 yards. 10 shots, 1 minute. Maybe get a few shooters to do the same (let the rifle cool down in between). BTW, the Swiss Army has DECADES of statistics with the K31, SIG 510, and SIG 550 in this yearly shooting test. Probably a good basis for measuring what you can expect for a better-than-average trained shooting population.
0311. Ran quite a few rifle quals and shot just as many. I have never seen any of our M4s shoot better than a 5moa. Someone claims they’ve seen or had one shoot anything less than a 3 is either lying through their teeth or they had an absolute unicorn of a rifle.
The main concern I have with this system is the cost of the bullet and the corresponding cost of parts. The pressure of the round is going to cause the rifles to wear out faster than an M4 or SIG .308. In a major war, are we going to be able to produce the number of rounds necessary to win? Cost and availability of components for this new type of ammo being major concerns.
I'm finding it hard to get excited about this cartridge as I've seen too many "wonder" rounds come and go after just a handful of years of people getting excited about it. Add to that both the rifles and the ammo are extremely expensive. If it still going strong 5-8 years from now and both the rifles and ammo have become affordable for us mere mortals then it will have my attention. Until then I will continue to plug along with 7.62x51.
Completely agree, so many new rounds claiming awesome results. Yet I think i'll stick with my 308's, ammo availability is a big thing. The fact that 308 can do great with the right rifle and the right ammo is all i need. If 277 becomes cheaper and more available in the future then i might try it out but as of now 308 is for me
Please comment on your Steiner scope, was looking at it as an option. Also interested in the 277 vs glass. That is why we have stuck with 308 vs 6.5 due to heavier weight bullets for intervening barriers especially at less than 200 yards. Great content.
I know if you go from a lead core to all copper back to lead core bullets it'll shoot like trash any time you go from a solid copper round to lead core you need to completely strip the barrel of the copper fouling for it to group correctly again with traditional bullets
The Sig SPEAR is a pretty good rifle. The side charging handle is redundant and allows the ingress of contamination into the rifle while adding extra weight to the rifle that is unnecessary. And I also think 7.62 NATO ammunition with a smaller diameter boat tailed bullet would nearly match the .277 Fury ammunition and be cheaper. The accuracy of the match grade .277 is good but I think the version with the normal case is more than adequate, with the over pressure version with a case made out of different materials a bit of overkill. They could have done a basic necked down 7.62 NATO cartridge that is the same overall length as the normal 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge and would fit in the same magazines as the 7.62 NATO with a smaller diameter boat tailed bullet of around 130 grains so a barrel swap would have been all that was needed. Some very big ballistic advantages would have been realised without needing a cartridge made of different materials or having the cartridge excessively over pressured. The new cartridge that is based on the 7.62 NATO that has been designed mainly for military use as described above was designed by: Mr Mark J Maxwell 😎🇦🇺
That’s impressively disappointing My 20” 308 AR10 pushing 155gn at 2816 FPS with Varget (which is higher chamber pressure limiting my potential velocity)
I detest the design-choices of the SPEAR. Instead of doing the sensible thing and designing around a longer barrel, maybe with support for a semi-integral suppressor, you get this loud short-barrel hellion. Alright, fine, high presure it is. Will we implement a new case-design that can handle the pressure? NO! Standard rim and drawn case it is! But that means we have to use steel, brass can't handle those pressures. Will we use a steel case that's differentially hardened using modern metallurgy? NO! That's too experimental! Bimetallic case it is! But we are already joining a steel base with another material, why not use polymers to reduce cost and weight? NO! Too experimental! Will we listen to the long-range shooting competition and hunters who uses 6,5 and 6mm projectiles to great effect? NO! 270 it is! Will we use a fine secant ogive in the bullets to increase BC, like the long-range calibers already do? NO! Standard fat ogive it is! Will we use steel-core ammo to reduce cost, weight and increase standard ball penetration, as well as making AP easy to produce using the same tooling? NO! Too complicated! Will we reduce case-head diameter to increase the ammo-count over 308? NO! A bandwagon of dumb chocies and missed opportunities.
@@PwntifexMaximus The 113gr 6.8x51 load was getting 2750 recently from a 9" barrel. It will be interesting to see people test and compare .277/6.8 loads vs barrel lengths as well as against 7.62/308, 6.5 creedmoor, 6mm creedmoor 22 creedmoor.
@@aaronfarnsworth7653 I can save you the effort, short barrels will have the SPEAR 300-ish FPS ahead of the others, the difference increasing with shorter lengths. High pressure does have advantages, and it's actually not the worst decision ever made. It's how they implemented it that truly bugs me. Also, if you are designing around short barrels there is no reason not to reduce capacity (and case-head diameter) to increase ammo capacity and reduce concussion, recoil, noise and weight.
From my hunting experience of using full copper bullets. If you have previously fired other types of bullets in your rifle without cleaning the barrel, the accuracy of the full copper bullets may be compromised.
You should NOT use optics with non free float barrel. They are to be used with front sight on tip of barrel because the barrel moves along with pressure on hand guard. Put free float hand guard on M4, then use the optics to get true accuracy of barrel, only match ammo should be used to get gun's accuracy.
Good review but at $63/box of 20 this is a novelty cartridge at best in the civilian space. Doesn't serve a practical training or self defense application because you cant afford to train with it and even the "cheap" ball ammo is $1 or more per round. Maybe in 5-10 years it'll come down in price but for the time being it's only going to be a military application and the 223/556 AR will reign supreme as "America's rifle"
Military use of this cartridge is many folds. 1. Power to defeat light armor at longer ranges to engage before enemy can shoot back. 2. Shorter barrel retaining said power to allow for suppressor to enhance team work communications, and ingress/egress speed for mounted operations. 3. Take advantage of smart M157 optics to engage multiple enemies at different distances accurately. 5. Heavier rifle kit, and more poweful recoil discouraging many smaller females from joining combat MOS 😅
Why this new cartridge Is my question. In a recent trip to the range I was running my 600yd 7.62x51 match load from a Ruger SFAR 20” bbl. My load, LC 18 brass, #34 primer, 4*.5 gr WIN 760 and the Berger Match 190gr VLD bullet. Here’s where it’s interesting, my velocity averaged 2585fps for 2742 ftlbs energy. This beats the .277 except in trajectory. The Fury’s 155 gr bullet beats my 7.62x51 load by just over 2” at 600yds. My load is an upper range load but NOT over book max. So why couldn’t the military run a 7.62x51 loading with a 185gr Berger Juggernaut (or equivalent) in an AR10 platform? There would be cost savings on ammunition and the rifle parts would have less stress put on them due to lower pressures. Seems we’re always searching for something better, just look at all the obsolete cartridges that were all the rage when released only to fail. Look at all the “old” cartridge designs that are still relevant, .300 WM etc
Interesting but what about "The Real World" TM when the ground pounders are responding to full auto by blazing away full auto? Geoff Who notes the German Army in the Mideast.
@@infantilepillock1687 there’s literally no gun other than a custom bolt action that is .5 MA all day long.Does not exist. You need to shoot more and watch less TH-cam
As a combat vet all I want to know is can the suppressor sustain a constant, all day, firing engagement. The accuracy is more than enough. I could hit steel at 800m with a 1-6 Elcan mounted on an M4 shooting m855. I want to know can the suppressor hang with sustained suppressive and covering fire that most likely will be required of it.
Yes, it can if its quality. The M4 requirement for holding Sustained fire is 210 rounds FA with reloads as fast as possible. Quality suppressors can handle around 700 rounds cyclic (belt fed). Atleast Silencerco did a test and theirs did.
@@zacharycox2014 I understand that. But we are talking about a .277 caliber round, hitting 80000 psi, traveling about 3000fps out of a 13in barrel. Thats pretty extraordinary. I want to see that rifle test suppressors. I’ve seen m4 barrels turn sand into glass.
I dont think this will be a good rifle for every soldier. Might be a good dmr, I think going from door to door or trenches like ukraine, the sig is heavy and big along with higher recoil impulse than an m4. Plus with penetrative results yes it will pierce armor if it hits it but will the damage be good or just through and through? Russia and ukraine seem to be sticking to AK's because it works in close combat enviorments. I think the u.s is forgetting that army to army combat will be different than what we saw in the middle east
Until the ammo/guns become more available and are more reasonable in cost, I'll sit this cartridge out. Love the innovation and capability of this round...just don't want to have to eat the high cost (yet)...
Upside, there's a whole lot of manufacturing being tooled up for the cartridge. Barring cancellation, there's going to be bleed out to the civvy market. And military rounds, do tend to make things cheaper. There's a reason 9mm and 5.56 are some of the cheaper rounds to shoot.
@@SlavicCelery Definitely. I'd LIKE to own a gun in this caliber someday, just want to wait for it to catch on and be more readily available. I don't want it to end up like 6.8 SPC where it never took off like I thought it would.
The difference between 3 and 5 shot groups indicates a lot of instability. Each 5 shot group should contain a 3 shot group, but there is nothing consistent about where bullets land. The cure for this is 20 shot groups on all tests, with the order of bullet impacts indicated. If 10 or 20 shot groups are not flattering to a given system, then shoot one shot groups. Light barreled hunting rifles can be tested via 3 shot groups. Battle rifles need groups equal to the magazine capacity; or are you going to ask the enemy for a 30 minute break so your barrel can cool off? A 200 yard only battle rifle does not need the 6.8 cartridge. The whole point of the latter is extended range. If you can't keep up with the firing rate of a bolt action because shot placement becomes dodgy, then what is the point of a semi-auto? If you want the 6.8 for its extended range as a DMR, then it needs a longer barrel. If you want a house clearing rifle, use an M4. If punch is the point, but not extended range, then use a common 7.62 x 51.
1.5" at 100yds 3.0" at 200yds 4.5" at 300yds 6.0" at 400yds 7.5" at 500yds is maximum kill shot range for ethical hunters. 9" (4.5" off point of aim) at 600yds is about the limit for wounding-fire at man-size targets.
The 6.8 SPC was designed for the same 500m max engagements as the 5.56x45, just with more energy and a bigger bullet. According to a study I saw, about 1 out of 6 engagements by 2010 started at beyond 500m, which is why the Army wanted an 800m+ capability. They also began seeing body armor even in places like Syria and decided that it would likely become much more common in the future and decided that a significantly more powerful cartridge was needed.
I wish there were more companies chambering things in this. I don't expect to spend 300-500 for one, but 1000-1500 seems reasonable. I'm not going to spend 5k for one of these.
It is basicly a DMR. Only squad riflemen will get it. Most of a squad can still use M-4s. Radio operator, NCO, grenadier and a machine gunner. Possibly with a second man supporting the MG. Depending on the situation, the M-4 will stilll be available. Most specialists and support troops will have M-4 mainly for self defense. Driver, mortar crew, gunners, medics? REMFs. The M-5 can still fire 7.62 NATO if needed with a barrel change.
Can we get a gel test? As much as i trust the math, 3200fps to 2700fps has to absolutely have an affect on the "tumble" of the bullet on gel targets. granted its still massive energy dumps but the tumble magic is high speed with massive energy dump, not energy retention correct?
50 bmg is 55k psi. 5.56 is 51k psi. 7.62 is 61k psi. The hell was the army thinking to make fury 80k psi for slightly flatter trajectory than 7.62? They should have worked on 7.92 cetme for 1000 yard low recoil shots. And since steel case is lighter and stronger than brass. The only trade off is that brass is higher fps and wears pit the muzzle more, while steel wears oit the throat more and muzzle less (which is a good thing since the crown does all of the accuracy work)
The Army set a max weapon length and a velocity spec for defeating body armor. The only way SIG could meet both without using a bullpup was to raise the pressure. Another competitor used lighter polymer rounds at standard pressures and used a bullpup arrangement to meet the weapon length spec.
Spectacular Battle Rifle That Will Pierce Level 4 Armor. That Energy Is The End Of Story. A Little Heavier Is An Excuse. Stay In Shape & Remain Sharp & You Will Easily Dismiss The Weight Excuse.
You should be doing a review of ruger lc carbine 10mm like the turkey opinion. How could you let him beat you to the punch . Keep up the good work !!!!
Great video! Can you address some of the .277 known disadvantages? 1. High recoil can affect follow-up shots. 2. Limited availability & higher costs for ammunition. 3. Shorter barrel life due to higher pressures & velocities.
If you use a 1 shot group it's zero MOA.
😂
😄
You know of what you speak 😂😂😂
1 shot group? Or did all the rounds go through the same hole?
Yes. All one of them. 😆
The contract overrun 6.8x51mm with the 113-grain all copper bullet is the XM1188 Reduced Ranged Ammunition (RRA). Aeroballistics Division at Picatinny designed the RRA to replicate roughly 50% the ballistic trajectory of the General Purpose (GP) XM1186 cartridge, which has the reversed drawn copper jacket and steel penetrator design as the M855A1 and M80A1. The RRA bullet has a flat base copper projectile which has a BC of ~ 0.33. RRA are used at Army ranges for training. XM1188 RRA are loaded to the hot 80K psi pressures as the XM1186 tactical rounds but due to the projo's "inefficient aeroballistic design", it can be used at standard ranges without unduly modifying the surface danger zones (SDZs) of those established ranges.
Thank you
legit
I had not seen the pressures of the RRA. I thought it likely that it was loaded to a lower pressure to reduce wear and tear on the barrels. Where did you find the pressure number?
That's idiotic. Like putting a turbo on your car and then lowering the rev-limiter so it can't make as much HP.
@@PwntifexMaximus Not really. The Army needs to train somewhere and most of the rifle ranges in he US have surface danger zones designed for the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45. The high BC 6.8x51 combat round flies too far and ricochets too much to be used at them. It is also rough on barrels and targets. Instead, the Army will mainly train with the 113 grain Reduced Range Training Round which works well to 600m or so, but is designed to become vey draggy at transonic and subsonic speeds limit range. It is used just for training.
SIG pulled a fast one by calling it "ball" ammo rather than training ammo, so some people have been fooled.
Had the opportunity to talk to some of the army marksmanship support team and they had been testing the 6.8x51 and we're very impressed with what they could get the cartridge to do.
Yes, but that’s not what this video is about. It’s about his personal experience. The military can tell you whatever but it’s just coming from a private citizen and honestly more trust worthy
not to discredit the military but videos like this go more in depth and more informational
@@vicdiaz5180A civilian that is making money from views is never going to be "more trustworthy" than a soldier that has only his life at stake when judging a weapon. Nothing against Tim, but he has just one rifle as a sample for group sizes, versus the military units that have hundreds of M7s available.
Thank you sir! You're doing a lot of my homework for me :D
i can't wait to see your video on this
What jpop said, I’ll be waiting on your review/take on it too
Cool round, but I'm still sticking with 308 since I can afford to train with it. That is the most important factor for me
277 sells at the cheapest at around 90 cents a round, so figure yes, on average, you're over a buck a round at this point. If Trump by some miracle gets in and stops the idiotic Ukrainian and Middle East wars, maybe we'll finally get 7.62 NATO (308) back to 50 cents a round again (Walmart used to sell Turkish 7.62 for that price when he was President).
6.5 Creedmoor is better. Like, you can get it for the same price as .308 and it is better all around.
@@armorers_wrench Debatable. I like to hunt with my AR10 as well and .308 offers way more hunting loads compared to 6.5. On top of that, the barrel life is significantly better. When you buy ammo by the case, an extra .10-.20 cent per round adds up fast. To each their own
@@armorers_wrench theres always that one nerd spewing regurgitated Reddit ideology
There no good reason for civilians to but the 277 Fury Spear as it's the cartridge only for the 120 000 strong Close Combat Forces of the US Army. The full brass GP round ... performs like a 7mm08 which competes with the 308 already. See. No need at all to get a 277 Fury rifle.
Sig messed up basing the Fury on the 308 case size & length. The 277 Fury should have been AR length but still in a 308 case. The full brass GP round would perform better than the 6.5 GR and the SP Steel head SP round would perform "close to" 6.5 Creedmore. And everybody especially other Nato members would have gone gaga over the new US Army 6.8 CC.
The Spear 308 variant I ran resulted in .899 with 168FGMM and .953 with M118LR ... both 6-shot groups ... with M80 ball it did 2.919 group but that was 15 shots ... the platform is very accurate and handles heat like a boss ... well done Sig especially since this is a semi-QD barrel attachment method.
Vertical strings are due to differences in speed of the ammo or air in lung of the shooter. Lateral movements are caused by the shooter's trigger pull.
A natural barrel whip is circular in nature, and much more uniform in deviation.
This is considering ammo is seated cocentric in the brass as well as the chamber.
The ballistics on the box is for a 24" barrel. On their website it is listed in the "more specifications" section.
I achieved a 0.75" 5 shot group with my 7.62 MCX-SPEAR 13" bbl using S&B 168gr HPBT. It is definitely capable of accuracy.
5 shot groups are statistically irrelevant and unreliable, nothing less than 10 matters
@lucastonoli3256 said people starting 2 years ago apparently.
@@MagicPrepper People just started paying attention, statistics haven't changed. I'm glad that one time you were able to achieve that group. One time, my buddy's Mosin was also able to achieve 0.5MOA. Every other time, it was a 5-8 MOA rifle, but one time... one time...
@@MagicPrepper anyone with a brain since forever, but you cope however you want
@@mrnukeduster
My understanding is that some manufacturers base their rifle's achievable accuracy on running standardized tests similar to this format: 10x 5 round groups, lowest and highest MOA groups are removed and remaining are taken as the average. I don't think there is anything wrong with a 10 round grouping but I did feel the need to comment on the fact that for years it seemed 5 was acceptable as a general consensus. However, within the last few years the sudden demand for 10 round groups has been a noticeable difference. And of course, if I were to achieve a sub-moa 10 round group, what's to prevent the same logic from being applied that it was "just that once"?
I would love to see a wide range of tests of the real world difference in applications involving cover and concealment. We all know that .308 turns cover into concealment. Does the velocity of the .277 mean it will have a harder time punching through and delivering actual damage? I think this is a great DMR role cartridge.... Idk about the grunts. A lot of them dump their load in the first 2 minutes anyway.
Soldier feedback seems to be they like the barrier penetration; Maybe do 7.62x51 vs 6.8x51 against some objects like sand bags or cinder blocks.
3 shot groups tell us nothing. I wish you would’ve done fewer iterations of 5 or 9 shot groups if ammo availability was an issue.
We'll leave that to Josh and Henry at 9Hole Reviews.
I wish people would stop using 3 shot groups, it's almost completely statically meaningles. Especially when people shoot like 10 groups and pick the best. That's not how things work.
@@Nathan-jh1ho I know this isn't a hunting video. But for hunting the 3 shot groups make sense cause if your shooting more than 3 times at a animal you shouldn't be hunting but for matches or long range 5 shot groups or more is the way to go
What is the cost of a 3 shot group of 277 fury vs 3 shot group of 308??? 😊
@@erichenderson7789 the cost of ammo for good data might be a lot, but it's better than the cost of ammo for meaningless data
Whats the point of being able to punch threw armor at distance if you can't hit them at distance
Would be interesting to see how it compares to other calibers in terms of both precision and long-range performance!
Thanks for taking chronograph readings! I updated my spreadsheet for the cartridge to get better accuracy.
Love those ftlb numbers. This basically means we need a new 13” rifle with a freaking expensive new 6.8x51 because we hate 7.62x51 bullpups like the Tavor 7. Same energy, already battle proven. Progress in the firearms industry is just amazing 😂
Be nice to see the footage shooting the groups, about how rapid did you fire each group and how much time in-between groups?
I know I’m gonna come off like a dick, but we didn’t see him shoot the gun and he has a very close relationship with Sig. sig gives him all of his rifles
Great info and thanks for putting it up. I am thinking of picking up he Cross 277 Sig Fury and would look forward to a video on that.
let me know when I can get a barrel swap for my Tavor 7 in .277 Fury...and extra replacement parts when it wears out the gun
With the cost to produce and how advanced the technology is in barrel manufacturing, the Spear should be just as or more accurate than the HK417(M110A1) or the SR25(M110).
People vastly overestimate how accurate their rifles are. They will shoot a 3 shot group and claim sub moa accuracy when its typically not true. Try to get a 10 round sub moa group with a gas gun, its not as common as people think. Id say that gun is a shooter, 1.5 moa is great.
One thing I'll give Sig credit on is they got a civilian version of this rifle released really quite soon after the Army announced they were using this gun. If h& k had won this contract they would have gatekept their rifle for decades pretending like it was some super secret lazer rifle or something
I don't think people understand that you don't always want the highest possible pressures and FPS when it comes to the getting best 'accuracy' out of a cartridge. Consistency is what makes 'match' ammo what it is, the ability to be repeatable and dial in a scope is what sets it apart from standard military ball.
Yes, consistency matters. I tell reloaders this all the time. If you want accurate ammo.
Standard deviation is the number that's most important. The lower the SD the better.
I can easily increase the pressure by shoving the bullet deeper into the case. Higher psi = more risk of explosive gun. I'm not sure if the sig even has enough gas vent safeties.
This is why the Army has been working with sig over the past two years to figure out the best loads & bullets for SP high pressure steel head ammo. Army is satisfied with the accuracy of the full brass GP rounds which is equivalent to the 7mm 08.
He's shooting reduced range training ammo
Yeah just pushing to get the velocity out of the shorter barrel
So not sure if you have the distance to test this but I have been told one of the advantages of the new cartridge is it pushes the transsonic zone out past 1200 yards.
Yes. A 155grain 6.8 has very high bc, similar to 145 grain 6.5 that we know well.
Most riflemen don't engage past 5-600m.
@@johnwurfel2862But now they can and better if need be. The scope is amazing.
Much easier to check with a free ballistic app lol
I still see it as .277 FURRY 😂 every time i see the name on the box.
What about testing controlability while shooting rapidly, as compared to 5.56 and 308. Maybe a bill drill. Because one of the complaints is with the extra weight and recoil.
In my experience, most rufle/ cartridges that shoot the highest velocities are less accurate than the same shooting at lower velocities. Of course there are a few exceptions to this.
The Xm-7 will likely be a great weapon for certain conflict zones, which is most likely why the sig offering beat the others. The manual of arms is basically the same as the m4 and other variants so the soldiers can transition easily between the two depending on combat zones and mission tasks.
I agree. If there's a problem, it's that it is probably not well-suited for the CQB of urban warfare. So, right now, I can't see it fully replacing the M4. The M4, for all its shortcomings, is very well suited to handle the full spectrum of short-to-mid-range small-arms combat.
@@MrLeoAtrox this is true for our current conflicts with small, disorganized forces. I wonder how the m4 will fare in cqb with a force with comparable training/equipment. 5.56 is already stopped by many commercially available body armor kits.
If they use the shorter barrels and keep weight down, CQB won’t be an issue with it. Urban can be a problem. Especially working around civilians with something this barrier blind.
Is avaliable AR-10 caliber 277 sig Fury ???
( Or barrel 277 sig Fury 80.000psi suport ? For Build AR???
I am reloading this cartridge for a AR10 that I built. Of course I can not shoot the hybrid case ammo. The barrel is a 20in 1:7 twist X-caliber barrel. With factory 135gr FMJ I am seeing 2990-3000 fps, but it is very tough on the brass and will pop the primer. So very high pressure stuff. With the 130 gr hunting ammo I am recording 2940 fps. FMJ is a 1-2 MOA accurate and the 130 hunting is 1 MOA and I have no pressure signs. I hand loaded a 130 Nosler Accubond and settled on a load that was sub 1 MOA with a SD of 6.5 and FPS at 2944. I did load higher and got 2990-3000 fps with this bullet but accuracy got worse.
As much as I would like a Spear in 6.8x51, I don’t know if it would be worth it just to shoot the $2.80 a round ammo. I have a Spear in 7.62x51 and will stick with it. I am interested in the bolt action Cross though.
Really reminds me of my 260 remington shooting a 156 grain berger.The case capacity was always better suited to a little lighter bullet thoe like the 143 hornady witch is my go to load for everything out 1600 yds. 2950 fps out of a 24" bolt gun. The case is almost identical in dimensions and i understand this fury with the high pressure case will handle those heavier bullets but i feel it would really shine with a bullet in the mid 140's going probably 3200 plus.
Now they need to make a bi-metal 308 at 80k that can shoot the 175-200gr stuff at 150gr velocities or more. Kind of a 300 wsm for the modern age.
Im also curious how this comes into play with reloading?
Federal has the steel case back country that they say can be reloaded but have not seen specifics on what changes or special dies might be required or case life. Excited to see how this new high pressure rabbit hole plays out
looking at your groups there i thought only our Canadian guns were capable of that :)
Do the Meat Target!!!!!!
Another round here today.
Gone yesterday.
Bring back the 6.8 Western. 😎
The FPS on the box at range is super important when dealing with body armor at range. Yes, the ammunition is not AP, but the penetration level is based on speed. It looks like an AP round could penetrate level III armor at 100 yards or closer. That's weak for the whole selling point of the cartridge. It should be penetrating Level 4 at 100 yards. It would still most likely go through an army helmet at 500 yards.
Here's the thing, I found my 270 really liked the 140gn Nosslers. You might try 140gr bullets because the .277 likes that meplat
You shot M4 with a 4x ACOG, it’s ok. Buy in case of Spear you choose huge Steiner scope, not the LPVO))
Can't believe you already did Lightkeeper task to unlock Fury rounds on Peacekeeper shop list.
How about doing some X rounds in a timed period (usually a minute). There is standard test we had to do yearly as a member of the Swiss Army (you kept your service rifle at home during your off periods and virtually every town or village has a 300m shooting range; the Swiss Army is similar to the US Army Reserve). I did the Obligatory Shooting Test every year in my village. The timed test was 10 shots in 1 minute at 300m. Also, we had NO OPTICS (standard diopter sight on my SIG 510/FASS 57).
How about doing the same with your Spear? Keep the optics but do it at 300 yards. 10 shots, 1 minute. Maybe get a few shooters to do the same (let the rifle cool down in between).
BTW, the Swiss Army has DECADES of statistics with the K31, SIG 510, and SIG 550 in this yearly shooting test. Probably a good basis for measuring what you can expect for a better-than-average trained shooting population.
0311. Ran quite a few rifle quals and shot just as many. I have never seen any of our M4s shoot better than a 5moa. Someone claims they’ve seen or had one shoot anything less than a 3 is either lying through their teeth or they had an absolute unicorn of a rifle.
High velocity shouldn’t be an excuse. Find the node at that velocity range.
The main concern I have with this system is the cost of the bullet and the corresponding cost of parts. The pressure of the round is going to cause the rifles to wear out faster than an M4 or SIG .308. In a major war, are we going to be able to produce the number of rounds necessary to win? Cost and availability of components for this new type of ammo being major concerns.
I'm finding it hard to get excited about this cartridge as I've seen too many "wonder" rounds come and go after just a handful of years of people getting excited about it. Add to that both the rifles and the ammo are extremely expensive. If it still going strong 5-8 years from now and both the rifles and ammo have become affordable for us mere mortals then it will have my attention. Until then I will continue to plug along with 7.62x51.
Amen
Hear, hear. Not to mention, 308 can be pretty damn impressive with modern bullets and handloads.
Completely agree, so many new rounds claiming awesome results. Yet I think i'll stick with my 308's, ammo availability is a big thing. The fact that 308 can do great with the right rifle and the right ammo is all i need. If 277 becomes cheaper and more available in the future then i might try it out but as of now 308 is for me
Please comment on your Steiner scope, was looking at it as an option. Also interested in the 277 vs glass. That is why we have stuck with 308 vs 6.5 due to heavier weight bullets for intervening barriers especially at less than 200 yards. Great content.
I just bought the 13 inch barrel version. I'd love to see a ballistics comparison of 13 vs 16 inch 277 fury and 308 spears
I know if you go from a lead core to all copper back to lead core bullets it'll shoot like trash any time you go from a solid copper round to lead core you need to completely strip the barrel of the copper fouling for it to group correctly again with traditional bullets
I would be interested to hear your actual perspective on SDI after all these videos have come out lately calling them a scam.
You mean an online degree for a hands-on trade is crap ? Who would've thunk it😂
Thank you for making this video. I know this ammo and platform isn't cheap.
The Sig SPEAR is a pretty good rifle.
The side charging handle is redundant and allows the ingress of contamination into the rifle while adding extra weight to the rifle that is unnecessary.
And I also think 7.62 NATO ammunition with a smaller diameter boat tailed bullet would nearly match the .277 Fury ammunition and be cheaper.
The accuracy of the match grade .277 is good but I think the version with the normal case is more than adequate, with the over pressure version with a case made out of different materials a bit of overkill.
They could have done a basic necked down 7.62 NATO cartridge that is the same overall length as the normal 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge and would fit in the same magazines as the 7.62 NATO with a smaller diameter boat tailed bullet of around 130 grains so a barrel swap would have been all that was needed.
Some very big ballistic advantages would have been realised without needing a cartridge made of different materials or having the cartridge excessively over pressured.
The new cartridge that is based on the 7.62 NATO that has been designed mainly for military use as described above was designed by:
Mr Mark J Maxwell
😎🇦🇺
That’s impressively disappointing
My 20” 308 AR10 pushing 155gn at 2816 FPS with Varget (which is higher chamber pressure limiting my potential velocity)
I detest the design-choices of the SPEAR.
Instead of doing the sensible thing and designing around a longer barrel, maybe with support for a semi-integral suppressor, you get this loud short-barrel hellion. Alright, fine, high presure it is. Will we implement a new case-design that can handle the pressure? NO! Standard rim and drawn case it is! But that means we have to use steel, brass can't handle those pressures. Will we use a steel case that's differentially hardened using modern metallurgy? NO! That's too experimental! Bimetallic case it is! But we are already joining a steel base with another material, why not use polymers to reduce cost and weight? NO! Too experimental! Will we listen to the long-range shooting competition and hunters who uses 6,5 and 6mm projectiles to great effect? NO! 270 it is! Will we use a fine secant ogive in the bullets to increase BC, like the long-range calibers already do? NO! Standard fat ogive it is! Will we use steel-core ammo to reduce cost, weight and increase standard ball penetration, as well as making AP easy to produce using the same tooling? NO! Too complicated! Will we reduce case-head diameter to increase the ammo-count over 308? NO!
A bandwagon of dumb chocies and missed opportunities.
There was a youtuber recently, I think Ultimate Reloader, who did load .308 with a specific brand brass case to 100,000psi.
@@aaronfarnsworth7653
All the more reason to despise the SPEAR. Better metallurgy and quality control? NEVER!
@@PwntifexMaximus The 113gr 6.8x51 load was getting 2750 recently from a 9" barrel. It will be interesting to see people test and compare .277/6.8 loads vs barrel lengths as well as against 7.62/308, 6.5 creedmoor, 6mm creedmoor 22 creedmoor.
ok, super engineer.
@@aaronfarnsworth7653
I can save you the effort, short barrels will have the SPEAR 300-ish FPS ahead of the others, the difference increasing with shorter lengths. High pressure does have advantages, and it's actually not the worst decision ever made. It's how they implemented it that truly bugs me.
Also, if you are designing around short barrels there is no reason not to reduce capacity (and case-head diameter) to increase ammo capacity and reduce concussion, recoil, noise and weight.
He's only got limited ammunition. However if you overlay all those groups, and treat them as a single group, you can approximate an answer.
From my hunting experience of using full copper bullets. If you have previously fired other types of bullets in your rifle without cleaning the barrel, the accuracy of the full copper bullets may be compromised.
You should NOT use optics with non free float barrel. They are to be used with front sight on tip of barrel because the barrel moves along with pressure on hand guard.
Put free float hand guard on M4, then use the optics to get true accuracy of barrel, only match ammo should be used to get gun's accuracy.
Do the meat target with the 277 fury for PUAL!
I'll stick with 7.62
Good review but at $63/box of 20 this is a novelty cartridge at best in the civilian space. Doesn't serve a practical training or self defense application because you cant afford to train with it and even the "cheap" ball ammo is $1 or more per round. Maybe in 5-10 years it'll come down in price but for the time being it's only going to be a military application and the 223/556 AR will reign supreme as "America's rifle"
Like to see comparison to .270win and wby mag with 150gr bullits.
I really meant wsm.
Wow!! I want one!
Military use of this cartridge is many folds.
1. Power to defeat light armor at longer ranges to engage before enemy can shoot back.
2. Shorter barrel retaining said power to allow for suppressor to enhance team work communications, and ingress/egress speed for mounted operations.
3. Take advantage of smart M157 optics to engage multiple enemies at different distances accurately.
5. Heavier rifle kit, and more poweful recoil discouraging many smaller females from joining combat MOS 😅
Why this new cartridge Is my question.
In a recent trip to the range I was running my 600yd 7.62x51 match load from a Ruger SFAR 20” bbl.
My load, LC 18 brass, #34 primer, 4*.5 gr WIN 760 and the Berger Match 190gr VLD bullet.
Here’s where it’s interesting, my velocity averaged 2585fps for 2742 ftlbs energy. This beats the .277 except in trajectory. The Fury’s 155 gr bullet beats my 7.62x51 load by just over 2” at 600yds.
My load is an upper range load but NOT over book max.
So why couldn’t the military run a 7.62x51 loading with a 185gr Berger Juggernaut (or equivalent) in an AR10 platform? There would be cost savings on ammunition and the rifle parts would have less stress put on them due to lower pressures.
Seems we’re always searching for something better, just look at all the obsolete cartridges that were all the rage when released only to fail.
Look at all the “old” cartridge designs that are still relevant, .300 WM etc
I guess .277 is much better for autofire, more controllable, so better for cc
Interesting but what about "The Real World" TM when the ground pounders are responding to full auto by blazing away full auto? Geoff Who notes the German Army in the Mideast.
That’s good accuracy for a piston gun. I’m genuinely impressed.
You have never fired HK MR308 / MR 762. They are all 0.5 MOA guns with decent ammo.
@@infantilepillock1687 there’s literally no gun other than a custom bolt action that is .5 MA all day long.Does not exist. You need to shoot more and watch less TH-cam
@@randalljeffs7272 So you have neither shot nor ever handled one. There are tons of .5 MOA factory rifles made. You just can't afford them.
@@infantilepillock1687 your name is apt. And yes I own several piston guns including HK. They’re not .5 moa guns.
This is also a small affect of a duty gas system....😮
I would predict this riffle with match ammo to be a 1.5 MOA riffle. At worse 2 MOA
I really miss getting to watch you shoot the groups! And what suppressor are you running. Does it seem way overgassed when suppressed?
I would love to see the .277 tungsten ap ammo ballistics. It's classified right now. SIG wont talk about it rightfully so.
Is there plans for other ammo manufacturers to start production of rounds?
277 vs 308, performance, ballistic gel the whole 9 yards
how-a-bout a gel test using the equivalent 308 weight vs the 6.8 . Numbers mean nothing until you put it into gel.
1.5 moa is great for a service style rifle
As a combat vet all I want to know is can the suppressor sustain a constant, all day, firing engagement. The accuracy is more than enough. I could hit steel at 800m with a 1-6 Elcan mounted on an M4 shooting m855. I want to know can the suppressor hang with sustained suppressive and covering fire that most likely will be required of it.
Yes, it can if its quality. The M4 requirement for holding Sustained fire is 210 rounds FA with reloads as fast as possible. Quality suppressors can handle around 700 rounds cyclic (belt fed). Atleast Silencerco did a test and theirs did.
@@zacharycox2014
I reckon it will be "military grade".
@@zacharycox2014 I understand that. But we are talking about a .277 caliber round, hitting 80000 psi, traveling about 3000fps out of a 13in barrel. Thats pretty extraordinary. I want to see that rifle test suppressors. I’ve seen m4 barrels turn sand into glass.
I dont think this will be a good rifle for every soldier. Might be a good dmr, I think going from door to door or trenches like ukraine, the sig is heavy and big along with higher recoil impulse than an m4. Plus with penetrative results yes it will pierce armor if it hits it but will the damage be good or just through and through? Russia and ukraine seem to be sticking to AK's because it works in close combat enviorments. I think the u.s is forgetting that army to army combat will be different than what we saw in the middle east
Gonna head over to the sig store in NH and try one out
What do you think about reloading components for this cartridge? I know it is a bimetallic cartridge.
Soooo it has the same energy as a .308
I have got Sub MOA with 55gr .223 several times.
Until the ammo/guns become more available and are more reasonable in cost, I'll sit this cartridge out. Love the innovation and capability of this round...just don't want to have to eat the high cost (yet)...
Upside, there's a whole lot of manufacturing being tooled up for the cartridge. Barring cancellation, there's going to be bleed out to the civvy market. And military rounds, do tend to make things cheaper. There's a reason 9mm and 5.56 are some of the cheaper rounds to shoot.
@@SlavicCelery Definitely. I'd LIKE to own a gun in this caliber someday, just want to wait for it to catch on and be more readily available. I don't want it to end up like 6.8 SPC where it never took off like I thought it would.
The difference between 3 and 5 shot groups indicates a lot of instability. Each 5 shot group should contain a 3 shot group, but there is nothing consistent about where bullets land. The cure for this is 20 shot groups on all tests, with the order of bullet impacts indicated.
If 10 or 20 shot groups are not flattering to a given system, then shoot one shot groups.
Light barreled hunting rifles can be tested via 3 shot groups. Battle rifles need groups equal to the magazine capacity; or are you going to ask the enemy for a 30 minute break so your barrel can cool off? A 200 yard only battle rifle does not need the 6.8 cartridge. The whole point of the latter is extended range. If you can't keep up with the firing rate of a bolt action because shot placement becomes dodgy, then what is the point of a semi-auto?
If you want the 6.8 for its extended range as a DMR, then it needs a longer barrel. If you want a house clearing rifle, use an M4. If punch is the point, but not extended range, then use a common 7.62 x 51.
1.5" at 100yds
3.0" at 200yds
4.5" at 300yds
6.0" at 400yds
7.5" at 500yds is maximum kill shot range for ethical hunters.
9" (4.5" off point of aim) at 600yds is about the limit for wounding-fire at man-size targets.
I would like to see 6.8 .277 VS 6.8 SPC just to see how much more the .277 can produce over the 6.8 SPC.
The SPC is the peak M4/AR fighting cartidge IMO. I'd rather have the SPC than the fury
@@youtubedude3422 I am with you on that. I have 2 6.8 SPCs and I really like them.
The 6.8 SPC was designed for the same 500m max engagements as the 5.56x45, just with more energy and a bigger bullet. According to a study I saw, about 1 out of 6 engagements by 2010 started at beyond 500m, which is why the Army wanted an 800m+ capability. They also began seeing body armor even in places like Syria and decided that it would likely become much more common in the future and decided that a significantly more powerful cartridge was needed.
I wish there were more companies chambering things in this. I don't expect to spend 300-500 for one, but 1000-1500 seems reasonable. I'm not going to spend 5k for one of these.
They should make it a DMR and SAW round and keep the 5.56 M4A1 just to have a decent combat load.
It is basicly a DMR. Only squad riflemen will get it. Most of a squad can still use M-4s. Radio operator, NCO, grenadier and a machine gunner. Possibly with a second man supporting the MG. Depending on the situation, the M-4 will stilll be available. Most specialists and support troops will have M-4 mainly for self defense. Driver, mortar crew, gunners, medics? REMFs. The M-5 can still fire 7.62 NATO if needed with a barrel change.
Big fan from India! Love your work!
Can we get a gel test? As much as i trust the math, 3200fps to 2700fps has to absolutely have an affect on the "tumble" of the bullet on gel targets. granted its still massive energy dumps but the tumble magic is high speed with massive energy dump, not energy retention correct?
Can’t help but wonder if it would be easier to load .308 in a bi-metal case.
Wonder how the barrel will settle down and perform with Ball and Match ammo after 1K rounds??
Did the ammo fall of the back of a truck?
It came straight from the pocket of an SDI student.
50 bmg is 55k psi. 5.56 is 51k psi. 7.62 is 61k psi. The hell was the army thinking to make fury 80k psi for slightly flatter trajectory than 7.62?
They should have worked on 7.92 cetme for 1000 yard low recoil shots. And since steel case is lighter and stronger than brass. The only trade off is that brass is higher fps and wears pit the muzzle more, while steel wears oit the throat more and muzzle less (which is a good thing since the crown does all of the accuracy work)
The Army set a max weapon length and a velocity spec for defeating body armor. The only way SIG could meet both without using a bullpup was to raise the pressure. Another competitor used lighter polymer rounds at standard pressures and used a bullpup arrangement to meet the weapon length spec.
Spectacular Battle Rifle That Will Pierce Level 4 Armor. That Energy Is The End Of Story. A Little Heavier Is An Excuse. Stay In Shape & Remain Sharp & You Will Easily Dismiss The Weight Excuse.
what suppressor are you using on the spear?
Can the match ammo provide the amor piercing performance that makes the juice worth the squeeze on this caliber?
How far, with accuracy and effectiveness.
11:56 performance on game?
I'm gonna say its a 1.2 MOA gun with match ammo. comment left at 2:16
See how it does on 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch steel.
A box of 6.8 is more than the rifle. 😅
Wait till the military has its full allotment it has ordered. Then the price will plummet.
@@adama1294
With copper solids? Nope.
Like Henry said, they'll adopt this as a 7.62 rifle to burn through all the reserves. Then switch back to the 6.8.
You should be doing a review of ruger lc carbine 10mm like the turkey opinion. How could you let him beat you to the punch . Keep up the good work !!!!
Great video! Can you address some of the .277 known disadvantages?
1. High recoil can affect follow-up shots.
2. Limited availability & higher costs for ammunition.
3. Shorter barrel life due to higher pressures & velocities.
The only issue I have with the cartridge is it's not 300 win mag. But it tried to be.