I'm kind of disappointed by the poor accuracy - it begs the question if it's even worth pairing it with the high end optical system. Also i expected more damage on the level 4 ballistic plate for some reason...
I bet the rifle would be immensely more accurate with proper 20 inch barrel giving more time for bullet to gather centrifugal force + more velocity. Current trend of short barrels is just not vibing with me.
Yeah that accuracy was actually pretty bad. I thought these were supposed to be 2moa guns. Even the best group in this video is right at the tolerance standard for an m4 in need of rebarreling. I have heard if they hit 4moa they replace the barrel. It might be 5moa, but either way this is a brand new gun lol.
@@Jeffro_1basically it’s what it is, 7mm08 and a 7mm Remington magnum. Great deer rounds. I hunt with a 6.8 SPC (basically a 270) and it’s never let me down. 1 shot and they’re down within 20 ft if they run at all
I have one, love it. Just ordered more of the 6.8x51 ammo. The .277 is solid brass and will penetrate level 4 armor but it will take two to three shots. The hybrid 6.8x51 ammo will penetrate after one to two shots. The bimetallic hybrid ammo is what you want.
Have you looked at what the current weights for most loaded out service rifles are right now? I can tell you, they're not the Vietnam era 7-8lbs rifles anymore.
The Army doesn’t look at history much because those idiots had an M14 that was damn near the same thing. They learned it was too heavy, the ammo was too heavy, and it was hard to control on full auto.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm not spending that kind of coin for a 4 MOA rifle that has a short barrel and parts life because of the super high pressures.
I think with better ammo, they’d be able to half that, but youd think the all copper bullets would be very easy to make to high specs. Still not great, as a DMR is all this thing is good for, imo.
No one is asking the hard question about the 6.8x51. It is really just an over-pressured 7mm-08. How does it differ and does the standard non-military ammo provide any advantages over the 7m-08
yeah they sold to the US government a super expensive logistic hell with only marginal improvement over 7.62 NATO how is this level of stupidity even possible
I was just talking about how i would love to get some of this for ballistic testing on my own channel. You beat me to it! Excellent show as always, watching with my morning coffee.
In the early 1970s the Army had an experimental lightweight M14 with a folding stock and pistol grip. It fired a 90 grain 308 bullet at very high speed. What's old is new again.
The M7 has better ergonomics, better optics, and a better round. It is everything the M14 wasn't. You'll notice the countries that adopted the FN FAL/L1A1 kept them far longer than the US kept the M14. The M14 was a bad implementation, not a failed concept. Good battle rifles can work well.
Thank you for a great video. I work for a large firearms retailer and we recently had a training session with SIG. They told us that their future barrels would be made by FN and that they had switched from Chrome to Stellite lining to make them more durable. The rep's view was that the new barrels would hold up to 10,000 rounds of the mil-spec ammo. I wonder if the civilian version came with these barrels? And, since the civilian rifle is offered in 308, if it would come with a similar barrel lining? Will look forward to your testing with the civilian ammo. It would be interesting to see how it performs. Also, since SIG offer their Cross boltgun in 277 Fury aka 6.8x51, it would be great to see how close the semi auto version gets to the bolt version accuracy wise with different loads. Stay blessed always!
When the temporary cavity collapses the air inside gets compressed, which causes temperature to increase and the synthetic gel can ignite and create that fireball visual. It doesn't happen in animal tissue as far as I know.
I believe 9hole reviews said it best. This gun in 6.8 will get disgarded and the 7.62 version will be fielded simply because of logistics. We have billions of 7.62 rounds stocked all over the world. Our allies stock billions of 7.62 rounds. The war in Ukraine also shows us what the next war will probably look like. Short range fights in a trench while dodging fpv drones. An M4 or M16A4 will rule because its lighter and easier to operate and maintain. 5.56 is also vastly cheaper. This rifle and ammo are a complete waste of tax money.
The Fat Electrician did a great video on how the army spent millions upon millions to find out that putting a scope on their M16's let them be more accurate. I don't think they care about wasting money 😅... Wait, that's my tax dollars 😮💨
@@MattGoodman-vl7th They do when it becomes a logistical nightmare, especially when going with a new round is a big FU to NATO countries who have been with the 7.62x51 and 5.56 for decades now
So you listened to the video and his explanation that match grade ammo is available for the rifle for high accuracy and proceeded to go "nawww i didnt hear that. I cant afford it so its bad"
Most military rifles ARs and AKs are expected to he in the 2-4 MOA. Yes you can get better groupings, but overall, 4MOA for the military is still acceptable. Infantry doesn't need to stack a whole mag worth of ammo into one hole into a target.
Too bad they didn't bother to develop a Light Machine gun which was literally a requirement to be considered for the contract. GD has nobody to blame but themselves.
@@NorthKoreaUncovered True, but the military ought to be in the business in finding the best offer for each purpose. If they have to procure those options from different companies, so be it. Sig's new squad automatic weapon is stellar. GD's rifle was the best option. They should have chosen each, not at the expense of the other.
Even the optic on this rifle is DOA. Do you know what lasing a target gets you on the modern battlefield? Every gun within 2,000 meters will be pointed in your direction. IR lasers are not invisible to near peer adversaries.
The problem I see is that it starts to tumble at 7 inches, and stays in 1 piece. That means it's exiting the body before it tumbles. Same problem we have with 7.62X51 at close range.
@@donwyoming1936 Yes, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the testing in this video. We wont really know how the 6.8 performs until it is used in combat.
It was really good at 1 thing. Shockingly, the army realized they occasionally do more than 1 thing. I actually think a 100 grain 6.5 bullet in the spc case, if it produced similar speeds, would have been a much more capable alternative. Same energy, but better BC and therefore more long range capable.
@@Paladin1873 6.8 SPC is a good cartridge, and it's still around. If they make a hybrid case version of it, that could really maximise the firepower of an AR-15 size rifle. The reasons 6.8 SPC wasn't widely adopted have more to do with cost and logistics than ballistic performance.
Looking forward to seeing ballistics gel hits with the hunting bullets. When you get the match ammo testing, let's see a comparison of down range ballistics between the .277 Fury Match. Holdovers and wind drift numbers will be interesting to see compared to current long range cartridges like M118, 6.5 PRC, 6.5 Creedmoor, etc.
I’ve been waiting on this, I’ve been sold on the mcx spear for a while now and can’t wait to get a hold of one of these. Glad I didn’t get the 308 version
The only comment I can think of, Tim, is that it sucks that I was in the Army in the 80s when we still were using Vietnam-era equipment! We had old-school M-16s with iron sights; no optics, no body armor, and only the most high-speed units had night vision. It would’ve been nice to have the stuff these soldiers and marines are getting today.
Why not use the steel/brass cases in 7.62NATO loaded to app 70000psi? All modern weapons in 7.62NATO will handle this pressure and the new cases will eliminate the case rupture scanario. This would elevate the 7.62NATO to a new level and the logistics problem is eliminated.
This is what the True Velocity team tried to bring to the table with their entry, but the Army said "no" to backwards compatibility with existing weapon systems. Also "no" to bullpups.
When you change pressure specs like that, its at least a good idea to give the caliber a different name so that people don't think older 7.62 NATO guns can run it. You have made a new caliber that needs new guns, might as well get some better BC out of it by running a smaller diameter bullet.
@@electric_boogaloo496 As long as you get a case with a steel base, that eliminates case rupture, even older 7.62NATO weapons will stand up to 70000psi. It is mostly regular brass faliure that "kills" weapons and hurt shooters. Even with regular 308 working pressure. At 70000psi you are way within what existing 7.62NATO weapons in service are capable of handling. It is the brass case that is the weak spot. If civilians are hurt by using military 70kpsi ammo in their civilian weapons, who cares? We had this scenario in Norway for decades with Krag rifles in 6.5x55 not being able to handle "Mauser" 6.5x55 loads. When a few managed to hurt themselves using high pressure ammo in the Krag the common reaction was to award the few with a Darwin Award and laughter. Again, who cares?
AP 7.62x51mm NATO would accomplish most of what the requirement wanted, and at vastly lower cost than the project for the Sig Spear and its new 6.8x51 round.... but you can count on the DOD/Pentagon to choose the higher price and riskier option over the off-the-shelf proven cheaper option, every single time. Getting the best weapons and gear to the troops at the best price isn't the real mission of that organization, it is to line the pockets of defense contractors and get executives and generals that next promotion and bump in pay.
Sorta. Except this cartridge is going to burn through barrels, has a complicated, expensive casing to manufacture. Nobody else in NATO has shown interest in the round, so any ammunition parity with allies is back to WW 2 era.
@@kenneththynes4761 Ehh I don't think this round will be any worse than 7.62 representatives of sig have said the barrels should last 12-15K rounds. iirc they have a new coating that helps them last longer.
It's a spicy round but the barrels will get torn up quickly at those velocities. I can't imagine infantry using this in modern warfare with great success, especially if the accuracy isn't that great. 5.56 FTW
@@CharlieFoxtrot128 I think that projected service life is very questionable unless SIG and the Army did some real-world tests. Like long shot strings and mag dumps. In scorching desert conditions, both rifle and ammo will be preheated as well. The barrels will also get wear in training and requals.
If the recent testing of stainless steel and nitride is actually as good as people say it may be a step forward in improving the platforms accuracy and longevity
@@go4ride Ehh in certain fields yes but ammo wise its not really an issue due to the civilian market and other conflicts small arms ammunition production has been one of the few areas of production we can still do in massive quantities.
Yep, that's right .... and breaking reciprocating parts, too. The Army's requirement for such a short (13-inch) barrel was/is idiotic, given its spin-off effects. First, since Sig had to meet the army's lethality and MV requirements of such a short tube, chamber pressure had to be elevated, just creating the need for new case technology, hence the hybrid case design, which is unproven in the field operationally. Such a high-pressure cartridge fired out of a short barrel, even with a can (suppressor), leads to greater recoil, thereby diminishing accuracy and repeatability unnecessarily. Big Green said that the short barrel was needed so that a suppressor could be fitted permanently, but this requirement, too, was foolish. Today's rifles and carbines already have QD suppressors - which means that when not in use, the can can be easily removed and stowed to reduce overall length of the weapon. Such as for special ops, airborne or mechanized ops. A barrel of 18 or 20-inches (even 16) would have met the requirements without the need for a permanently-affixed can or high-pressure ammo. The appearance of a "fireball" according to Tim, points to another drawback of short barrels, namely muzzle flash and report. The suppressor does mitigate those, but simply using a somewhat longer barrel would have made these problems less of an issue. A longer barrel combined with the proper burn-rate powder would have eliminated all or almost all of the flash, which would be desirable in night operations. This whole weapon system is a "solution" in search of a problem, IMHO. Good luck to mil.gov sorting it out....
Sigs always been overpriced but you can do that to the public like sure fire when you have those government contracts and as we all know the government is not very sound when it comes to spending taxpayer money.
So essentially it’s a .270win in a short action based case. I’ve been reloading .270win for decades with similar weight bullets. I may have to build myself a bolt action version.
I am experienced reloader but don’t use ballistic gel. What causes the fireball inside gel cavity? My best guess is powder still igniting/ burning as it is trailing bullet? Do most rifle cartridges do this in your experience?
AFAIK, It's a phenomenon called explosive compression; basically, the bullet creates a large temporary cavity, which gets filled with air sucked in through the bullet's flight path, then the cavity rapidly collapses fast enough that it cause a massive spike in pressure and temperature, which then causes the air to combust - it's basically the same concept as a Diesel engine, only there's no fuel in the mixture.
When bullet meets ballistic medium, apart from already being quite hot from firing and barrel friction, much kinetic energy is converted into more heat. The fireball I believe then is the ignition and combustion of vaporized/outgassing medium in the temporary stretch cavity.
Faster target acquisition and more consistent first round hits at range. Even if it's not going to be as accurate as a dedicated marksman or sniper rifle at long range, it is still good enough for the purposes of it's intended employment.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 if you can't execute the fundamentals of marksmanship because of stress, due to people shooting at you, then the optic is not going to help you get hits any better.
@es4583 of course, that goes without saying, but new technology will help and the training programs for combat arms are longer than they used to be, almost 6 months. They get a lot more time on a rifle than before.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 "more consistent first round hits" Ok, first some basic math. This platform shoots 4 moa- that's at 100 yards. Anyone remember their times tables? Once you hit 300 yards your chances of a miss just based on the inherent inaccuracy of the platform are greater than your chances of hitting. Now add to that the stress of being caught in a far ambush, which happened fairly regularly in Afghanistan. Even if you're able to hold completely steady and fire; that 4moa spread is now 20" at 500 yds. Your optic isn't helping with that. Keep in mind that all of this is also ignoring environmental factors.
Can anyone explain the flash in the ballistics gel? The gel is a solid block, no obvious air bubbles, then the projectile penetrates the block with tremendous speed, it is surely not dragging air into the block, is it? Is this something to do with cavitation behind the projectile? Is it a reaction to the energy change and friction by the material of the block itself? I’d love to understand what is actually happening from a physics point of view here. 4 MOA sounds like Sig was getting nostalgic for a FAL!
What are your thoughts on it potentially prematurely wearing on rifles barrels and things etc is most people not shooting enough rounds for that to be of concern or what im just curious
Sig representatives have said the barrel should last 12-15K rounds to fall out of mil spec (4moa max 2moa standard). The vast majority of people will not shoot it enough to have to worry about it for a while. Basically, it just about matches 7.62x51 in the barrel life department and cheap 5.56 barrels as well.
A lot of times, accuracy at range isn’t a direct correlation for the 100yard moa. I like seeing multiple shots groups at various ranges out to the max effective range.
I built a AR10 with a 20 in. X-Caliber 277 Fury barrel. I am only shooting the brass case low pressure cartridge. I am seeing 2920 FPS out of the 130 gr hunting ammo and 2990-3000 fps out of the 135 gr FMJ. Accuracy is about 1 1/2 MOA at 100 yards. I already have started reloading this cartridge and found a matching powder that duplicates velocity. It’s currently one my wild boar hunting rifle. I have the .308 Sig Spear and have been waiting for the 6.8x51 version to come out.
I miss the point of waiting the 6.8 version since they just said that they would have released 6.8 and 6.5 barrels. Or do you want two separate rifles?
@@dahriim5237 I bought the MCX Spear chambered in 7.62x51/.308 . I was hoping they would offer the 6.8x51 upper assembly. I built my rifle because I was really interested in the cartridge and wanted to use it for hunting. Basically it the same as the old wildcat 270-08 which evolved into 7mm-08. I am already reloading 277 Fury and using 7-08 as a base for similar powders. So far StaBall 6.5 has been great at matching velocity to box ammo since there is no published load data
Great video Tim. I really enjoy the videos on modern military weaponry and ammunition. Please keep them coming. I am anticipating the video I saw advertised in one of your shorts in regards to the accuracy problems with the SCAR DMR. Thanks again.
Looking forward to more comparisons with commercial ammo such as 6.5 PRC, 6.8 Westerner and 7 PRC. Big question is will the 6.8x51 remain a proprietary cartridge for a very expensive short barrel AR rifle or does it have any capability to compete as a target and hunting round in 18-22” AR10 style or bolt rifles? I suspect even the .270 Win could shoot a 115gr bullet at 3200fps in a 22” barrel.
With the AP round I think this is a good upgrade for the military with future wars with advisories that have Armour on. Past wars have been with advisories with little to no Armour. My biggest concern is the weight of weapon and the round count I've heard it is only a 20 rd mag. The 4 MOA is average for most battle rifles. In wartime the amount of rounds going down range you would never tell the difference
MAC, did you check the barrel nut/screws and handguard screws before the test? Some MCXs are loose for whatever reason. I would have expected at least 2-2.5 moa, but this cartridge is being pushed at such high pressure and speeds, it may create instability in the round compared to 6 mm ARC, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6 mm GT. Thanks for the review.
This will be the next M14. The 6mm Arc would have been the right choice (Imo). My 6mm Arc (less than a $1,000 gun) is sub MOA if I'm doing My part (rare) . Even with a standard AR, 55g ball out of a 20 inch zips through My level 3+ armor. 18inch with handloaded ammo using M855A1 projectiles zips through the highest rated plated I could find.
I agree that this would be better in a 1:1 comparison, but when you have to keep 150K combat troops supplied and none of our allies or partners us 6ARC, using what amounts to necked down 7.62 that just requires a barrel swap to use existing stock makes more sense.
tbf the requirement was never for AP qualities the actual document that lays them out is still classified as far as I can tell people just kind of guessed that AP was a requirement.
I want to see these hand-loaded maybe with a little bit higher case pressure out of the sink cross with a 20-inch barrel see the velocities because you can get some really high BC bullets in 6.8 cal from Berger ECT bolt gun with this round
So, investing in a rifle and ammo to penetrate body armour on long distances, but it doesn't penetrate body armour and you can't hit it beyond 300 meters because the accuracy sucks. Leaves the GI with a heavy and bulky rifle that probably break within 2 years. Awesome...
The reports are only tungsten AP rounds will defeat level four armor. I doubt China is going to sell us vast quantities of Tungsten to kill their soldiers in a future war.
@@rogiervis2306 It can penetrate body armour with the actual AP ammo, and the accuracy will probably be better with the issued ammunition. Also, it's no heavier than the IAR the Marines already use.
That round seems like an excellent DMR round. Your standard troop, not so much. Seems like a large rifle your female and small framed male service members. They have trouble with the smaller M4...
Yeah. I could see a valid point to replace 7.62x51 DMRs and machine guns with this round, but not an infantry rifle. They created the right round for the wrong niche.
How low in power can this carbine go. Can it work lower chamber pressures. For use when lethality is not a priority. Possibly training rounds. 7.62mm NATO can be used in the M-5 for training to use up old ammo stocks. Would that improve rifle lifespan by reducing stress.
Intended to defeat level 4 body armor and have enough punch out to 400+ yards. Ok wizards, this will involve training just infantry way more to have confidence to make hits at 400 yards. So if we do get into peer to peer conflict where we have to run people through basic stupid fast(even during Vietnam they shortened basic training for army and marines) how much time are we going to spend on marksmanship? So now we are back to WW2 and Korea where troops had a rifle that could hit out to 600 yards(M1 Garand) but wouldn't shoot because they weren't trained good enough
So its almost 10lbs, and uses heavier ammo plus cuts the load out supply in half? Help me understand how this better than an M4? I get the AP aspect; but could a better AP 5.56 not been developed? Call me nuts; but I dont get it... it hits hard, Ill give it that; but in real engagements the amount of ammo, is far more critical than the type of ammo...
It’s already been developed, it’s called m995, it’s the best AP 5.56 round in the world, which is also the problem, it’s the best 5.56 AP round in the world, you can’t get any better than a m995 out of 24 inch barrel, the 5.56 has maxed out its armor penetrating category and can’t go any further, sure you can develop something that squeezes out those last bits of FPS but you aren’t going to get anything substantial out of it and it’s going to be more expensive than the new rifle.
For some additional context, M995 not only fails to penetrate Level 4 armor but due to a lack of energy causes minimal back face deformation. M993 (which costs the Arm $14+ a round) is the 7.62x51 Tungsten tipped round and it performs about the same as the $2 a round (DoD cost) reduced range ammo used in this video against Level 4 body armor. The combat ammo (EPR style hardened steel tip) and special purpose (tungsten tip) rounds for the 6.8 meant for this purpose should see significant performance improvement over the copper projectiles used in this test.
It's not necessarily better than an M4. It's better suited to what the army wants in preparation for the next big fight. It's basically like only driving as part of your daily commute to work and then suddenly you find yourself in a NASCAR race. Different tools for the job. Rear units will still use the M4.
@Red-238 of course, what I mean is that the M4 isn't bad at all, but the Army requires a combat rifle with more range and power than current weapons provide due to how our potential adversaries fight.
I still want to see a long-term look at barrel wear with this round. People harp on 6.5 Creed being a barrel-burner, I can only imagine what this round is doing.
7mm-08 has a 60,000 psi max pressure. 6.8x51 is 80,000 psi max pressure. That's a 33% increase in pressure. Way more than a "hot load." Max charge weight for a 120gr 7mm-08 in the Hornady book for Varget is 43.7 grains of powder. Try putting 58.1 grains (a 33% increase) into the case and firing it. The gun will blow up.
@@allenneva5213 Look up the MV for each cartridge. You might get an an additional 150-200 fps from the 277. With factory loading for a similar projectile weight. It's not a big difference and I've seen people push 7mm-08 to 7mm Rem mag velocities. My point is that the 277 fury is underwhelming when there was a (if not several) ready options already in existence with performance very close to what a factory loaded 277 Fury is offering.
@@bradhertzler4451garand thumb was able to take it out to extended range, I think people forget that 100 yard groups don’t necessarily translate 1:1 at distance. Not saying extra accuracy wouldn’t help though, especially for inexperienced soldiers
Now i am just imagining that hybrid round with a M855A1 type projectile. What the post pen effect is going to be at 3200+fps also as a test, maybe a soft body armor before the gel, to see how the post pen differs from straight up gel
I honestly think everyone is looking at this rifle wrong. The point of this gun is not armor penetration or general long range engagement due to afghanistan. The document that supports these claims supposedly is still classified, and we have only gotten indirect info about it. I am of the opinion that they opted for this cartidge as parts of a total system. It starts with but does not end with the optic. Everyone is assuming that the 300m and below stats will hold, but they wont if the the reasons for those stats go away. Terrain aside, the big reasons for short ranges are inability to hit a target at long range and inability to detect said target. The sight fixes the marksmanship problem. The new army helmet with thermals and data links solves the other. Remember, this optic has the ability to data link targets to other squad members. think about how this changes tactics. If you no longer need line of sight to communicate and coordinate, than your spacing can and will hugely increase. You might have squad members displaced to very long distances but still able to be in the loop. This means that you need the maximum possible long range capability or your optics will be less useful. The army is trying to do now what it tried in the early 2000s but the technology wasnt there yet. Basically many of the ideas from the FCS program. Except that the drones and datalinks that were cutting edge then are now standard civilian technology even. That is going to completely change how you engage the enemy, and how you shoot move and communicate. You are no longer going to see squads operating with 10m meter spacing or anyhting like that. They might be spaced 1-200m apart or more.
@@joystickjedi368 Damnnn, are you a professor??? You sound like I would like to. Reads like a military arms contractor selling the army on the weapon. Pretty cool. Hope MAC dude, Matt, reads your comment. I have the high tech thots but often unable to articulate them into this writing on air platform. As to the datalink when you have access to the great technology so do the drones hunting you plus your soldier skills weaken. Also if you lose said datalink you are immediately blind to your surroundings and possibly on your own. As to a weapon over 10lbs and possibly over 14lbs plus heavier ammo, soldiers being soldiers will bitch and moan about it until the weapons are phased out. I think right now the ratio of rounds fired to actual enemy hit is over 200 to 1. Yes the datalink might improve that BUT the enemy will have it also. And the enemy drones. Keep up the good work. rick in Tennessee. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". Sir Edmund Burke
I would be really curious to see what the difference in accuracy would be with a standard lead core ball round. I recall something about those copper rounds being a thing driven by environmental regulations and there is a shift in the Army to use less lead
This is why even though I am a very big proponent of the rifle as part of the Army's modernization effort, I don't recommend it to civilian shooters. The Army got this for very specific reasons, and civilians don't need this. Not because they shouldn't have access to it, but because you can do better, lighter, for cheaper, and with more common ammunition on the commercial market.
@@robkilcollins310 Because it's a lot easier to keep our troops supplied with ammunition that is compatible with existing advance stocks around the world via a simple barrel swap than to rebuild that munitions supply from scratch with ammo that is on paper better like 6ARC. As for the accuracy, I think it's due to the fact that his rifle is still pretty new and hasn't had time to settle. AKs and other rifles do the same thing. After a certain number of rounds you get consistent accuracy to zero from. IIRC 9HoleReviews was getting 2-3 MOA and he was actually shooting at distance with it. I also heard that certain bolts or screws need to be adjusted first. This is all why the Army has adopted it but hasn't put it to full-scale production yet. The SPEAR that enters official service will almost certainly be different from the one we are seeing in circulation now.
I’m super excited to see the hunting ammo outcome! I’ve got 277 fury on order from a custom shop dealer here in florida. I’m hoping to have it by hunting season as I plan on deer hunting with it. Thank you for posting! Great content 👍👍
This isnt the actual ammo the army will be really using. This is their range ammo im sure. They dont want our enemies to see what they really will be dealing with. This is a red herring
@adventurfly879 your assessment of the ammo is correct, however your reasoning is wrong... The 113 he is the reduced range ammo for the Army however it is labeled that due to safety standards on existing ranges (the flat base keeps the surface danger zone to within 7.62x51 specs and can be used on ranges rated for 7.62x51) not to keep "the enemy from knowing what they are dealing with"
No one has solved the problem of caseless ammo. The heat transfer to the chamber. All cased ammo has the case essentially acting like a removable heat sink. It reduces total heat transfer to the chamber. Caseless doesn't, and so it heats up extremely quickly. Which is a massive issue in combat, you know, when you may have to cycle a lot of rounds in a short time.
The problem isn't 5.56. The M4 is still going to be the service rifle. The M7 is going to be the combat rifle of the close combat force (Infantry,Cav,Combat Engineers). The problem is it's no longer infantry vs infantry, but infantry vs infantry and artillery with near-peer adversaries being very artillery centric, something the US forces are deficient in. We can't allow our infantry formations to get fixed by enemy forces only to get destroyed by their artillery.
The reduced range copper seems to have quite the huge neck in gel. Really need to see how well XM1184 will do. If it's anything like M855A1 and M80A1, it will wreck things, armored, barriered or not :D
I played next to Anthony Munoz and he was the best ever. Before each game he would eat a big plate of refried beans and then shit on himself. His steaming logs would keep the defenders away and made him slippery.
I wonder about barrel life with this round. For GI it doesn't matter, we don't worry about that cost, but I'll be curious to see what comes out in terms of useful service life of barrels and bolts with this ammo.
4-5 MOA is horrible. A good AR even with M855 or M193 will do 2 MOA or better and sub MOA with a load it likes. As it stands I dont think this will catch on with its current price, size/weight, and accuracy. Now if Ruger chambers it in its SFAR that fixes the size/weight and then if ammo availability, price, and its accuracy are fixed then I could see it catching on.
@Militaryarmschannel Im not talking about a military M4. I can't speak to their accuracy. However, commercially available ARs can and will do better than 3+ MOA with M193. Even my cheap Ruger MPR will do 2 MOA with military ball and sub MOA with my 62gr GD handloads.
@@Nick-sx6jm Military M4's are 3-4 MOA guns with M855 and M855A1 (do several 10 round groups not just 3 round groups) that is in line with the mil-spec.
the brass cased rounds are bullet for bullet weight a slightly reduced .270 winchester.....same as the 7.62x51 is a slightly reduced 30-06...go figure as the 30-06 is parent to all 3 but the steel based round is a horse of a different color
I can guarantee the military has multiple loadings, including some match level ammo for precision shooting. Just like they have done with the m16 platform they will have dozens of variations for different mission requirements. They may already have sass version with a 16-20” barrel.
![The M4 vs M7 Sig Spear NGSW [feat. GBRS Group]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZZ3bbUw3skw/mqdefault.jpg)
Ar-Owners : “brass cased is best!”
Ak-owners : “steel cases is best!”
Sig owners “yes”
Army discovered the hybrid cases have issues with tearing so SIG is now looking at full steel cases.
I'm kind of disappointed by the poor accuracy - it begs the question if it's even worth pairing it with the high end optical system.
Also i expected more damage on the level 4 ballistic plate for some reason...
I’d like to see them test out the AP ammo. The whole point was that this can penetrate body armor at range.
I bet the rifle would be immensely more accurate with proper 20 inch barrel giving more time for bullet to gather centrifugal force + more velocity. Current trend of short barrels is just not vibing with me.
Coulda just had 7mm08 and been done with it
Yeah that accuracy was actually pretty bad. I thought these were supposed to be 2moa guns. Even the best group in this video is right at the tolerance standard for an m4 in need of rebarreling. I have heard if they hit 4moa they replace the barrel. It might be 5moa, but either way this is a brand new gun lol.
@@Jeffro_1basically it’s what it is, 7mm08 and a 7mm Remington magnum. Great deer rounds. I hunt with a 6.8 SPC (basically a 270) and it’s never let me down. 1 shot and they’re down within 20 ft if they run at all
I have one, love it. Just ordered more of the 6.8x51 ammo. The .277 is solid brass and will penetrate level 4 armor but it will take two to three shots. The hybrid 6.8x51 ammo will penetrate after one to two shots. The bimetallic hybrid ammo is what you want.
The thought that someone said it was a good idea for an infantryman to carry around a 14 lb rifle with 100 rounds blows my mind.
Vietnam war problem all over again.
@@arturoroldan4839 Yup!
Have you looked at what the current weights for most loaded out service rifles are right now? I can tell you, they're not the Vietnam era 7-8lbs rifles anymore.
The Army doesn’t look at history much because those idiots had an M14 that was damn near the same thing. They learned it was too heavy, the ammo was too heavy, and it was hard to control on full auto.
Fair point
I don't know about you guys, but I'm not spending that kind of coin for a 4 MOA rifle that has a short barrel and parts life because of the super high pressures.
I think with better ammo, they’d be able to half that, but youd think the all copper bullets would be very easy to make to high specs. Still not great, as a DMR is all this thing is good for, imo.
@@Inflorescensse I prefer my SAMR's to be 1 MOA. 2 MOA isn't great for a precision rifle and is barely acceptable IMHO.
No one is asking the hard question about the 6.8x51. It is really just an over-pressured 7mm-08. How does it differ and does the standard non-military ammo provide any advantages over the 7m-08
@@StarSurfer55 I don't think there's been enough of the military ammo made available for a comprehensive side by side test & evaluation.
@@92naz32it’s not a precision rifle. It’s designed to be a combat rifle. 2 MOA is perfectly acceptable combat accuracy
The 80K chamber pressure has SIG laughing while mass producing replacement barrels. This thing is likely a maintenance nightmare.
6.5-284 Norma barrel life is 1200 rounds. I’m anticipating the same with this. 7.62x51 NATO is 8000 rounds.
You’re correct.
Barrel life is about 10-13K rounds even at that higher chamber pressure iirc
@@nighthawk2174 Not a chance in hell of that being true, not if you want to actually hit what you are aiming at.
yeah they sold to the US government a super expensive logistic hell with only marginal improvement over 7.62 NATO
how is this level of stupidity even possible
@@TheJukkis Sure seems like it.
I was just talking about how i would love to get some of this for ballistic testing on my own channel. You beat me to it! Excellent show as always, watching with my morning coffee.
I got lucky. :) Thanks for watching!
It's great to see Guntubers supporting each other.
@@bradhertzler4451 Absolutely, we arent competition and are all on the same pro 2A side
I still kick myself for not getting the Remington m24 when I had the chance.
In the early 1970s the Army had an experimental lightweight M14 with a folding stock and pistol grip. It fired a 90 grain 308 bullet at very high speed. What's old is new again.
I tend to agree with the people in the other video who said this thing will be the next m14.
Yhup. It will have a very short service life.
It’s the next M14 on paper already. The Army that’s back in the rear with the gear, isn’t humping that thing around.
The M7 has better ergonomics, better optics, and a better round. It is everything the M14 wasn't. You'll notice the countries that adopted the FN FAL/L1A1 kept them far longer than the US kept the M14. The M14 was a bad implementation, not a failed concept. Good battle rifles can work well.
Accurate fire superiority beats fire superiority all day, how do you think Americans were able to survive 90% of ambushes in the GWOT?
5.56 can’t defeat body armor. We need 6.8
Thank you for a great video. I work for a large firearms retailer and we recently had a training session with SIG. They told us that their future barrels would be made by FN and that they had switched from Chrome to Stellite lining to make them more durable. The rep's view was that the new barrels would hold up to 10,000 rounds of the mil-spec ammo. I wonder if the civilian version came with these barrels? And, since the civilian rifle is offered in 308, if it would come with a similar barrel lining? Will look forward to your testing with the civilian ammo. It would be interesting to see how it performs. Also, since SIG offer their Cross boltgun in 277 Fury aka 6.8x51, it would be great to see how close the semi auto version gets to the bolt version accuracy wise with different loads. Stay blessed always!
What is the mechanism that caused the fireball in the ballistics gel? Never seen that before
When the temporary cavity collapses the air inside gets compressed, which causes temperature to increase and the synthetic gel can ignite and create that fireball visual. It doesn't happen in animal tissue as far as I know.
I believe 9hole reviews said it best. This gun in 6.8 will get disgarded and the 7.62 version will be fielded simply because of logistics. We have billions of 7.62 rounds stocked all over the world. Our allies stock billions of 7.62 rounds. The war in Ukraine also shows us what the next war will probably look like. Short range fights in a trench while dodging fpv drones. An M4 or M16A4 will rule because its lighter and easier to operate and maintain. 5.56 is also vastly cheaper. This rifle and ammo are a complete waste of tax money.
True story.
The Fat Electrician did a great video on how the army spent millions upon millions to find out that putting a scope on their M16's let them be more accurate. I don't think they care about wasting money 😅... Wait, that's my tax dollars 😮💨
@@MattGoodman-vl7th They do when it becomes a logistical nightmare, especially when going with a new round is a big FU to NATO countries who have been with the 7.62x51 and 5.56 for decades now
Can't argue with quantity having a quality all it's own, and there is a whole crap ton of 7.62 quality around the world.
😂😂 well said sir
Man that gun shoots worse than almost every one of the 10 or so AKs that nine hole reviews has tested.
hahaha 😆
So you listened to the video and his explanation that match grade ammo is available for the rifle for high accuracy and proceeded to go "nawww i didnt hear that. I cant afford it so its bad"
Most military rifles ARs and AKs are expected to he in the 2-4 MOA. Yes you can get better groupings, but overall, 4MOA for the military is still acceptable. Infantry doesn't need to stack a whole mag worth of ammo into one hole into a target.
@@Ratkill9000 for the cost of this platform it should shoot though. 4 moa at 3-400 yards makes it easier to miss than a 1-2 moa rifle.
@@brianx2504 military ball ammo is not for accuracy. Match ammo is meant for DMR and sniper.
RM277 was such a wasted opportunity, it could have been a modern spiritual successor of the FG42 and the ammunition had reduced weight
Too bad they didn't bother to develop a Light Machine gun which was literally a requirement to be considered for the contract. GD has nobody to blame but themselves.
@@NorthKoreaUncovered True, but the military ought to be in the business in finding the best offer for each purpose. If they have to procure those options from different companies, so be it. Sig's new squad automatic weapon is stellar. GD's rifle was the best option. They should have chosen each, not at the expense of the other.
I want more bullpups for Halo's sake lol. Guess I'll have to settle for an MDR.
@@NorthKoreaUncovered Well that was because the LMG guy left for sig lol
It doesn't work, lol
Even the optic on this rifle is DOA. Do you know what lasing a target gets you on the modern battlefield? Every gun within 2,000 meters will be pointed in your direction. IR lasers are not invisible to near peer adversaries.
But in Afghanistan… 😟
You don't have to laze the dude. You can laze the ground or a rock nearby.
Imagine getting shot so hard that the exit wound has a smoke plum jetting out like an 80s diesel truck.
The problem I see is that it starts to tumble at 7 inches, and stays in 1 piece. That means it's exiting the body before it tumbles. Same problem we have with 7.62X51 at close range.
@@donwyoming1936 Yes, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the testing in this video. We wont really know how the 6.8 performs until it is used in combat.
The 6.8 SPC was going to replace the 5.56 and 7.62x51 - wait, it was going to rule the SOCOM community - wait, it's . . . gone.
6.8 spc sucked
@@ChanoLeyva-hq2ciit only was truly effective within 200 yards beyond that it was terrible
It was really good at 1 thing. Shockingly, the army realized they occasionally do more than 1 thing. I actually think a 100 grain 6.5 bullet in the spc case, if it produced similar speeds, would have been a much more capable alternative. Same energy, but better BC and therefore more long range capable.
@@Wilt11-14 naw a heavier high bc 556 projectile that’s pushed at a decent speed would be perfect, like a hot mk262 but better at armor penetration
@@Paladin1873 6.8 SPC is a good cartridge, and it's still around. If they make a hybrid case version of it, that could really maximise the firepower of an AR-15 size rifle. The reasons 6.8 SPC wasn't widely adopted have more to do with cost and logistics than ballistic performance.
So storm trooper accuracy is what they actually want
May the Farce be with you.
It's the same MOA as the M4...
Looking forward to seeing ballistics gel hits with the hunting bullets. When you get the match ammo testing, let's see a comparison of down range ballistics between the .277 Fury Match. Holdovers and wind drift numbers will be interesting to see compared to current long range cartridges like M118, 6.5 PRC, 6.5 Creedmoor, etc.
Excellent reviews and thank you for your service!!
I’ve been waiting on this, I’ve been sold on the mcx spear for a while now and can’t wait to get a hold of one of these. Glad I didn’t get the 308 version
The only comment I can think of, Tim, is that it sucks that I was in the Army in the 80s when we still were using Vietnam-era equipment! We had old-school M-16s with iron sights; no optics, no body armor, and only the most high-speed units had night vision. It would’ve been nice to have the stuff these soldiers and marines are getting today.
Why not use the steel/brass cases in 7.62NATO loaded to app 70000psi? All modern weapons in 7.62NATO will handle this pressure and the new cases will eliminate the case rupture scanario. This would elevate the 7.62NATO to a new level and the logistics problem is eliminated.
This is what the True Velocity team tried to bring to the table with their entry, but the Army said "no" to backwards compatibility with existing weapon systems. Also "no" to bullpups.
When you change pressure specs like that, its at least a good idea to give the caliber a different name so that people don't think older 7.62 NATO guns can run it. You have made a new caliber that needs new guns, might as well get some better BC out of it by running a smaller diameter bullet.
@@electric_boogaloo496 As long as you get a case with a steel base, that eliminates case rupture, even older 7.62NATO weapons will stand up to 70000psi. It is mostly regular brass faliure that "kills" weapons and hurt shooters. Even with regular 308 working pressure. At 70000psi you are way within what existing 7.62NATO weapons in service are capable of handling. It is the brass case that is the weak spot. If civilians are hurt by using military 70kpsi ammo in their civilian weapons, who cares? We had this scenario in Norway for decades with Krag rifles in 6.5x55 not being able to handle "Mauser" 6.5x55 loads. When a few managed to hurt themselves using high pressure ammo in the Krag the common reaction was to award the few with a Darwin Award and laughter. Again, who cares?
AP 7.62x51mm NATO would accomplish most of what the requirement wanted, and at vastly lower cost than the project for the Sig Spear and its new 6.8x51 round.... but you can count on the DOD/Pentagon to choose the higher price and riskier option over the off-the-shelf proven cheaper option, every single time. Getting the best weapons and gear to the troops at the best price isn't the real mission of that organization, it is to line the pockets of defense contractors and get executives and generals that next promotion and bump in pay.
I think a slightly souped up .260 Remington would be about ideal - or the 6mm ARC.
Sticking with 556/223 for general purpose rifle, stockpiles. And I still like my 6.5 Creedmoor for my intermediate/battle rifle/long range caliber.
So we are finally getting the .276 Pedersen.
Just shows how slow the Army’s wheels move. When did they do the test on that ammo? 1932ish? So it takes about 100 years for a good idea to take hold.
Sorta. Except this cartridge is going to burn through barrels, has a complicated, expensive casing to manufacture.
Nobody else in NATO has shown interest in the round, so any ammunition parity with allies is back to WW 2 era.
@@kenneththynes4761 Ehh I don't think this round will be any worse than 7.62 representatives of sig have said the barrels should last 12-15K rounds. iirc they have a new coating that helps them last longer.
It's a spicy round but the barrels will get torn up quickly at those velocities. I can't imagine infantry using this in modern warfare with great success, especially if the accuracy isn't that great. 5.56 FTW
From what I’ve heard the barrel life is around 10k rounds. I’m not sure if that’s with the higher pressure ammo or not tho
Issued M4s/M16s are 3-4 MOA just an FYI.
@@CharlieFoxtrot128 I think that projected service life is very questionable unless SIG and the Army did some real-world tests. Like long shot strings and mag dumps. In scorching desert conditions, both rifle and ammo will be preheated as well. The barrels will also get wear in training and requals.
@@DarkhorseGaming1775no that’s what’s acceptable most rack grade ars are 2moa or better
From what I understand the Spear has a barrel lining (chrome?) to address that. That lining is probably what limits the accuracy potential.
In 6 yrs , I hope to give the cartridge a try when Amma is common like 308. Also, when PSA makes an upper
.308 also looks good at 300 meters against concrete blocks and sapi plates
the problem is that concrete blocks don't shoot back
If the recent testing of stainless steel and nitride is actually as good as people say it may be a step forward in improving the platforms accuracy and longevity
With Lake City building a new ammo plant for the production of NGSW ammo, I do see the price of ammo coming down eventually.
"Eventually" being the key word. Gaza and Ukraine has shown that US stocks of ammo of all kinds is uncomfortably low.
@@go4ride Ehh in certain fields yes but ammo wise its not really an issue due to the civilian market and other conflicts small arms ammunition production has been one of the few areas of production we can still do in massive quantities.
With the barrell interchangleable, does thus mean that i can send off a less than 16" barrel off to get the sbr tax stamp or would it work different
What is the black U shaped thing on top of the gun infront of the scope?
What was wrong with just using m993 for ap purposes? Isnt it a lot more expensive to make a whole new system for that purpose?
M993 performs about the same on armor as the training ammo MAC is testing in this video but costs 7 times as much.
@@duanemckinley9353 lol no, it goes directly through level 4 plates without stopping at all
9 hole suggested the .308 had serious recoil for that caliber, particularly one so heavy.
With that pressure they will be changing barrels often.
Yep, that's right .... and breaking reciprocating parts, too. The Army's requirement for such a short (13-inch) barrel was/is idiotic, given its spin-off effects. First, since Sig had to meet the army's lethality and MV requirements of such a short tube, chamber pressure had to be elevated, just creating the need for new case technology, hence the hybrid case design, which is unproven in the field operationally. Such a high-pressure cartridge fired out of a short barrel, even with a can (suppressor), leads to greater recoil, thereby diminishing accuracy and repeatability unnecessarily.
Big Green said that the short barrel was needed so that a suppressor could be fitted permanently, but this requirement, too, was foolish. Today's rifles and carbines already have QD suppressors - which means that when not in use, the can can be easily removed and stowed to reduce overall length of the weapon. Such as for special ops, airborne or mechanized ops. A barrel of 18 or 20-inches (even 16) would have met the requirements without the need for a permanently-affixed can or high-pressure ammo.
The appearance of a "fireball" according to Tim, points to another drawback of short barrels, namely muzzle flash and report. The suppressor does mitigate those, but simply using a somewhat longer barrel would have made these problems less of an issue. A longer barrel combined with the proper burn-rate powder would have eliminated all or almost all of the flash, which would be desirable in night operations.
This whole weapon system is a "solution" in search of a problem, IMHO. Good luck to mil.gov sorting it out....
And bolts, gas systems.
Not a big deal for the government.
@@deputygunner It is quoted at around 10k rounds as far as I'm aware.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 I'm sure soldiers will love having to quickly attach their suppressor any time they take contact...
Sigs always been overpriced but you can do that to the public like sure fire when you have those government contracts and as we all know the government is not very sound when it comes to spending taxpayer money.
😮Doing a number on the plate Definitely from the start
So essentially it’s a .270win in a short action based case. I’ve been reloading .270win for decades with similar weight bullets. I may have to build myself a bolt action version.
@@bertpulaski2492 I love the .270 more than most people, but there's no way it could ever deliver those sorts of velocities out of short barrels.
Exactly what I thought .270 in a semiautomatic rifle
I am experienced reloader but don’t use ballistic gel. What causes the fireball inside gel cavity? My best guess is powder still igniting/ burning as it is trailing bullet? Do most rifle cartridges do this in your experience?
AFAIK, It's a phenomenon called explosive compression; basically, the bullet creates a large temporary cavity, which gets filled with air sucked in through the bullet's flight path, then the cavity rapidly collapses fast enough that it cause a massive spike in pressure and temperature, which then causes the air to combust - it's basically the same concept as a Diesel engine, only there's no fuel in the mixture.
When bullet meets ballistic medium, apart from already being quite hot from firing and barrel friction, much kinetic energy is converted into more heat. The fireball I believe then is the ignition and combustion of vaporized/outgassing medium in the temporary stretch cavity.
4:38 He threw up his hand to show the size of 3 1/2 inches instantly. Experience makes these videos great
Did it come with the can? Or did you manage to get the Sig brake off?
He was running a Sig can.
@@duanemckinley9353 thank you
Jesus - that advertisement was friggin’ unhinged!
Boomer mobile
This could definitely be a game-changer for those looking for something with more punch
What’s the point of the XM157 optic that’s supposed to help with aim if your rifle ammo combo can’t perform to that standard???
Ball ammo isnt meant for armor piercing. Did you even watch the video?
Faster target acquisition and more consistent first round hits at range. Even if it's not going to be as accurate as a dedicated marksman or sniper rifle at long range, it is still good enough for the purposes of it's intended employment.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 if you can't execute the fundamentals of marksmanship because of stress, due to people shooting at you, then the optic is not going to help you get hits any better.
@es4583 of course, that goes without saying, but new technology will help and the training programs for combat arms are longer than they used to be, almost 6 months. They get a lot more time on a rifle than before.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 "more consistent first round hits"
Ok, first some basic math. This platform shoots 4 moa- that's at 100 yards. Anyone remember their times tables? Once you hit 300 yards your chances of a miss just based on the inherent inaccuracy of the platform are greater than your chances of hitting.
Now add to that the stress of being caught in a far ambush, which happened fairly regularly in Afghanistan. Even if you're able to hold completely steady and fire; that 4moa spread is now 20" at 500 yds. Your optic isn't helping with that. Keep in mind that all of this is also ignoring environmental factors.
Can anyone explain the flash in the ballistics gel? The gel is a solid block, no obvious air bubbles, then the projectile penetrates the block with tremendous speed, it is surely not dragging air into the block, is it? Is this something to do with cavitation behind the projectile? Is it a reaction to the energy change and friction by the material of the block itself? I’d love to understand what is actually happening from a physics point of view here. 4 MOA sounds like Sig was getting nostalgic for a FAL!
What are your thoughts on it potentially prematurely wearing on rifles barrels and things etc is most people not shooting enough rounds for that to be of concern or what im just curious
Guess it was worth a shot asking 🤷 😅
Sig representatives have said the barrel should last 12-15K rounds to fall out of mil spec (4moa max 2moa standard). The vast majority of people will not shoot it enough to have to worry about it for a while. Basically, it just about matches 7.62x51 in the barrel life department and cheap 5.56 barrels as well.
A lot of times, accuracy at range isn’t a direct correlation for the 100yard moa.
I like seeing multiple shots groups at various ranges out to the max effective range.
I built a AR10 with a 20 in. X-Caliber 277 Fury barrel. I am only shooting the brass case low pressure cartridge. I am seeing 2920 FPS out of the 130 gr hunting ammo and 2990-3000 fps out of the 135 gr FMJ. Accuracy is about 1 1/2 MOA at 100 yards. I already have started reloading this cartridge and found a matching powder that duplicates velocity. It’s currently one my wild boar hunting rifle. I have the .308 Sig Spear and have been waiting for the 6.8x51 version to come out.
I miss the point of waiting the 6.8 version since they just said that they would have released 6.8 and 6.5 barrels. Or do you want two separate rifles?
@@dahriim5237 I bought the MCX Spear chambered in 7.62x51/.308 . I was hoping they would offer the 6.8x51 upper assembly. I built my rifle because I was really interested in the cartridge and wanted to use it for hunting. Basically it the same as the old wildcat 270-08 which evolved into 7mm-08. I am already reloading 277 Fury and using 7-08 as a base for similar powders. So far StaBall 6.5 has been great at matching velocity to box ammo since there is no published load data
@@chrisgoodwin7667 As far as I got it, all we need is the 6.8 barrel to swap calibers.
I own the 308 too, and can't wait to try the 277 Fury.
What was the twist in the 6.8 barrel? And, would a different twist give you more accuracy with the ammo you were using?
That’s a great rifle system if you have unlimited logistics and typically ride not walk. 😂
Great video Tim. I really enjoy the videos on modern military weaponry and ammunition. Please keep them coming. I am anticipating the video I saw advertised in one of your shorts in regards to the accuracy problems with the SCAR DMR. Thanks again.
Moriarti Armament is selling this as an AR10 upper.
*I don't see it on their page. Sure you're not confusing it with the 6.8SPC?*
*Yeah, no sorry, you're wrong. They only carry 6.8SPC which is 6.8x43, not 51mm.*
@@m4rvinmartian they have a 16 inch 277 Fury for $699. Look harder.
@@m4rvinmartian They carry a .277 Fury upper...
Looking forward to more comparisons with commercial ammo such as 6.5 PRC, 6.8 Westerner and 7 PRC. Big question is will the 6.8x51 remain a proprietary cartridge for a very expensive short barrel AR rifle or does it have any capability to compete as a target and hunting round in 18-22” AR10 style or bolt rifles? I suspect even the .270 Win could shoot a 115gr bullet at 3200fps in a 22” barrel.
Keeping it for military use only is plainly unconstitutional. If it's fit for military service, it's fit for the militia AKA We the People!
I just got another Zastava M70! Zastava usa is on top of their game
With the AP round I think this is a good upgrade for the military with future wars with advisories that have Armour on. Past wars have been with advisories with little to no Armour. My biggest concern is the weight of weapon and the round count I've heard it is only a 20 rd mag. The 4 MOA is average for most battle rifles. In wartime the amount of rounds going down range you would never tell the difference
You’re probably the first guntuber I’ve seen to test this with full-house ammo. Congrats. 👍
Alabama Arsenal were able to test some years ago shortly after it won the contract
Would be curious if any of the sig match ammo has better accuracy out of a cross rifle in 277/6.8 x 51
I have a Spear 7.62 and I can not wait till the Sig makes enough barrels in 6.8!
MAC, did you check the barrel nut/screws and handguard screws before the test? Some MCXs are loose for whatever reason. I would have expected at least 2-2.5 moa, but this cartridge is being pushed at such high pressure and speeds, it may create instability in the round compared to 6 mm ARC, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6 mm GT. Thanks for the review.
This will be the next M14. The 6mm Arc would have been the right choice (Imo). My 6mm Arc (less than a $1,000 gun) is sub MOA if I'm doing My part (rare) . Even with a standard AR, 55g ball out of a 20 inch zips through My level 3+ armor. 18inch with handloaded ammo using M855A1 projectiles zips through the highest rated plated I could find.
I agree that this would be better in a 1:1 comparison, but when you have to keep 150K combat troops supplied and none of our allies or partners us 6ARC, using what amounts to necked down 7.62 that just requires a barrel swap to use existing stock makes more sense.
i remember an old video from you there was a underwood 9mm loading that will defeat armor. i cant seem to find it. can you please link it?
I would like to see the round tested on body armor at distance, 300 yd+. We all know it will perform at closer ranges. Keep up the awesome content!
tbf the requirement was never for AP qualities the actual document that lays them out is still classified as far as I can tell people just kind of guessed that AP was a requirement.
I want to see these hand-loaded maybe with a little bit higher case pressure out of the sink cross with a 20-inch barrel see the velocities because you can get some really high BC bullets in 6.8 cal from Berger ECT bolt gun with this round
Thanks for the spicy review!
Burn that barrel down for us!
Please do a comparison between this and a short barrel 6.5 Creedmoor, maybe even a short barrel 308 as well for full transparency.
So, investing in a rifle and ammo to penetrate body armour on long distances, but it doesn't penetrate body armour and you can't hit it beyond 300 meters because the accuracy sucks. Leaves the GI with a heavy and bulky rifle that probably break within 2 years. Awesome...
The ball rounds won't penetrate level 4, don't think he even expected them to. I'm pretty sure the AP rounds will though
@@orenthalsimpsonI’m still skeptical. Level IV is pretty dang hard to defeat. .30-06 AP is no joke.
The reports are only tungsten AP rounds will defeat level four armor. I doubt China is going to sell us vast quantities of Tungsten to kill their soldiers in a future war.
@@forrest225 M993 and M995 can already do it, so it's not a big deal.
@@rogiervis2306 It can penetrate body armour with the actual AP ammo, and the accuracy will probably be better with the issued ammunition. Also, it's no heavier than the IAR the Marines already use.
Is it more capable then 243 Winchester which is essentially a tapered down 308 like 277 fury
That round seems like an excellent DMR round. Your standard troop, not so much. Seems like a large rifle your female and small framed male service members. They have trouble with the smaller M4...
Get those gains up.
Yeah. I could see a valid point to replace 7.62x51 DMRs and machine guns with this round, but not an infantry rifle. They created the right round for the wrong niche.
This is why I liked the bullpup RM 277
How low in power can this carbine go. Can it work lower chamber pressures. For use when lethality is not a priority. Possibly training rounds. 7.62mm NATO can be used in the M-5 for training to use up old ammo stocks. Would that improve rifle lifespan by reducing stress.
The consumer Fury is mostly the lower pressure stuff.
Intended to defeat level 4 body armor and have enough punch out to 400+ yards. Ok wizards, this will involve training just infantry way more to have confidence to make hits at 400 yards. So if we do get into peer to peer conflict where we have to run people through basic stupid fast(even during Vietnam they shortened basic training for army and marines) how much time are we going to spend on marksmanship? So now we are back to WW2 and Korea where troops had a rifle that could hit out to 600 yards(M1 Garand) but wouldn't shoot because they weren't trained good enough
I think you've forgotten about the new vortex smart scope.
@@ivaniuk123 That’s not happening. 😂
@@ivaniuk123 I don't care what tech you put on weapon, if you are a poor shot you will be a poor shot with tech
You should look at the 8inch variant known as the MCX Raptor.
With new LPVO scope technology and not trying to hit 200 yards with m16 irons it is viable
"When you look at factory loaded ammunition, you don't see them loaded to crazy high pressures."
-Mk262 mod 1 has entered the chat
So its almost 10lbs, and uses heavier ammo plus cuts the load out supply in half? Help me understand how this better than an M4? I get the AP aspect; but could a better AP 5.56 not been developed? Call me nuts; but I dont get it... it hits hard, Ill give it that; but in real engagements the amount of ammo, is far more critical than the type of ammo...
It’s already been developed, it’s called m995, it’s the best AP 5.56 round in the world, which is also the problem, it’s the best 5.56 AP round in the world, you can’t get any better than a m995 out of 24 inch barrel, the 5.56 has maxed out its armor penetrating category and can’t go any further, sure you can develop something that squeezes out those last bits of FPS but you aren’t going to get anything substantial out of it and it’s going to be more expensive than the new rifle.
For some additional context, M995 not only fails to penetrate Level 4 armor but due to a lack of energy causes minimal back face deformation. M993 (which costs the Arm $14+ a round) is the 7.62x51 Tungsten tipped round and it performs about the same as the $2 a round (DoD cost) reduced range ammo used in this video against Level 4 body armor. The combat ammo (EPR style hardened steel tip) and special purpose (tungsten tip) rounds for the 6.8 meant for this purpose should see significant performance improvement over the copper projectiles used in this test.
It's not necessarily better than an M4. It's better suited to what the army wants in preparation for the next big fight. It's basically like only driving as part of your daily commute to work and then suddenly you find yourself in a NASCAR race. Different tools for the job. Rear units will still use the M4.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 i would say that its better than a m4 especially the penetration department.
@Red-238 of course, what I mean is that the M4 isn't bad at all, but the Army requires a combat rifle with more range and power than current weapons provide due to how our potential adversaries fight.
I still want to see a long-term look at barrel wear with this round. People harp on 6.5 Creed being a barrel-burner, I can only imagine what this round is doing.
So initial reports are barrels last 10-13K rounds
did not expect that shirt on this channel but im all for it lol
Follow me on Twitter, you'll find that this shirt makes perfect sense for me to wear. 😀 Thanks for watching.
What is the advantage for the military to use the steel
head case over a steel case
So it's basically a hot 7mm-08 load.
With less consistency
Very hot. Like 270 Win in shorter barrel.
7mm-08 has a 60,000 psi max pressure. 6.8x51 is 80,000 psi max pressure. That's a 33% increase in pressure. Way more than a "hot load." Max charge weight for a 120gr 7mm-08 in the Hornady book for Varget is 43.7 grains of powder. Try putting 58.1 grains (a 33% increase) into the case and firing it. The gun will blow up.
@@allenneva5213 Look up the MV for each cartridge. You might get an an additional 150-200 fps from the 277. With factory loading for a similar projectile weight. It's not a big difference and I've seen people push 7mm-08 to 7mm Rem mag velocities. My point is that the 277 fury is underwhelming when there was a (if not several) ready options already in existence with performance very close to what a factory loaded 277 Fury is offering.
@@iflycentral they aren't pushing those velocities out of a 13" barrel like the 6.8x51mm cartridge is.
Think there will ever be a good affordable AR10 style rifle chambered in this caliber rated for the high pressure ammo?
I'm just hoping for a light weight hunting rifle in it
@@justahologram2230 The new sig cross 277 fury should do the trick. But I think the cross prs in 6.5 creedmoor is probably the better choice.
@@derekb2681 the .277 fury model is 7.6lbs naked, id like to see sub 6lb preferably around 5.5lb
The whole NGWS was a giant waste of time and money. The M7 is too heavy and not accurate enough for even a DMR role.
Did you even watch the video? It's not a DMR rifle, it's an infantry rifle, and it had the accuracy the Army expects of it.
So you want the army who's preparedness is shifting toward actually militaries with access to actual body armor to fight with regular M4s.....?
The M4 has 4 MOA and the 6.8 has more range and enough to reach out longer distances.
@@bradhertzler4451garand thumb was able to take it out to extended range, I think people forget that 100 yard groups don’t necessarily translate 1:1 at distance. Not saying extra accuracy wouldn’t help though, especially for inexperienced soldiers
@@ivaniuk123 people definitely don't realize military M4s are a 3-4 moa gun.
Now i am just imagining that hybrid round with a M855A1 type projectile. What the post pen effect is going to be at 3200+fps
also as a test, maybe a soft body armor before the gel, to see how the post pen differs from straight up gel
That is a 22 grain heavier bullet, so less powder in the case and a slower max velocity.
Mac your choice of ad revenue is making me unsubscribe
We'll see ya.
Fr I'm a libertarian as that ad was disgusting play of fake patriotism
The bullets were not stabilizing very well in the civilian version comparison to Garand thumb. He was using the military version, same ammo
I honestly think everyone is looking at this rifle wrong. The point of this gun is not armor penetration or general long range engagement due to afghanistan. The document that supports these claims supposedly is still classified, and we have only gotten indirect info about it. I am of the opinion that they opted for this cartidge as parts of a total system. It starts with but does not end with the optic. Everyone is assuming that the 300m and below stats will hold, but they wont if the the reasons for those stats go away. Terrain aside, the big reasons for short ranges are inability to hit a target at long range and inability to detect said target. The sight fixes the marksmanship problem. The new army helmet with thermals and data links solves the other. Remember, this optic has the ability to data link targets to other squad members. think about how this changes tactics. If you no longer need line of sight to communicate and coordinate, than your spacing can and will hugely increase. You might have squad members displaced to very long distances but still able to be in the loop. This means that you need the maximum possible long range capability or your optics will be less useful. The army is trying to do now what it tried in the early 2000s but the technology wasnt there yet. Basically many of the ideas from the FCS program. Except that the drones and datalinks that were cutting edge then are now standard civilian technology even. That is going to completely change how you engage the enemy, and how you shoot move and communicate. You are no longer going to see squads operating with 10m meter spacing or anyhting like that. They might be spaced 1-200m apart or more.
@@joystickjedi368 Damnnn, are you a professor???
You sound like I would like to. Reads like a military arms contractor selling the army on the weapon. Pretty cool. Hope MAC dude, Matt, reads your comment. I have the high tech thots but often unable to articulate them into this writing on air platform.
As to the datalink when you have access to the great technology so do the drones hunting you plus your soldier skills weaken. Also if you lose said datalink you are immediately blind to your surroundings and possibly on your own. As to a weapon over 10lbs and possibly over 14lbs plus heavier ammo, soldiers being soldiers will bitch and moan about it until the weapons are phased out. I think right now the ratio of rounds fired to actual enemy hit is over 200 to 1. Yes the datalink might improve that BUT the enemy will have it also. And the enemy drones.
Keep up the good work.
rick in Tennessee.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
Sir Edmund Burke
I would be really curious to see what the difference in accuracy would be with a standard lead core ball round. I recall something about those copper rounds being a thing driven by environmental regulations and there is a shift in the Army to use less lead
4 MOA! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Chucklehead tactical Ted's buying this thing for over 3k! Omg I'm dying. Great job Sig.
4 MOA accuracy has been the milspec standard for a very long time now.
@@Looscannon94 Don't care. $3500 + rifle that shoots that poorly? I would be outraged had I been delusional spend that much on a rifle. Period.
This is why even though I am a very big proponent of the rifle as part of the Army's modernization effort, I don't recommend it to civilian shooters. The Army got this for very specific reasons, and civilians don't need this. Not because they shouldn't have access to it, but because you can do better, lighter, for cheaper, and with more common ammunition on the commercial market.
@@Avera9eWh1teShark6 Why would the Army need it more than civilians?
Why does the army need a 4 MOA Battle rifle?
@@robkilcollins310 Because it's a lot easier to keep our troops supplied with ammunition that is compatible with existing advance stocks around the world via a simple barrel swap than to rebuild that munitions supply from scratch with ammo that is on paper better like 6ARC.
As for the accuracy, I think it's due to the fact that his rifle is still pretty new and hasn't had time to settle. AKs and other rifles do the same thing. After a certain number of rounds you get consistent accuracy to zero from. IIRC 9HoleReviews was getting 2-3 MOA and he was actually shooting at distance with it. I also heard that certain bolts or screws need to be adjusted first. This is all why the Army has adopted it but hasn't put it to full-scale production yet. The SPEAR that enters official service will almost certainly be different from the one we are seeing in circulation now.
I’m super excited to see the hunting ammo outcome! I’ve got 277 fury on order from a custom shop dealer here in florida. I’m hoping to have it by hunting season as I plan on deer hunting with it.
Thank you for posting! Great content 👍👍
This isnt the actual ammo the army will be really using. This is their range ammo im sure. They dont want our enemies to see what they really will be dealing with. This is a red herring
Interesting Bro
The enemy knows it already. Don't worry. 😉
With our government? Pfft, enemy already knows. Besides, this is a garbage concept anyway
@adventurfly879 your assessment of the ammo is correct, however your reasoning is wrong... The 113 he is the reduced range ammo for the Army however it is labeled that due to safety standards on existing ranges (the flat base keeps the surface danger zone to within 7.62x51 specs and can be used on ranges rated for 7.62x51) not to keep "the enemy from knowing what they are dealing with"
Are soldiers being deployed with this caliber or is this still a couple of years away?
Several groups have them for testing mostly airborne and ranger units I think it'll start going further out to standard units sometime next year.
Patriot mobile is so cringe.
How does it compare to a plain old Winchester Model 70 in 270 Winchester?
The rifle & cartridge are both dumb. Improve the M4 & 5.56 and wait for caseless to hit the street.
No one has solved the problem of caseless ammo. The heat transfer to the chamber. All cased ammo has the case essentially acting like a removable heat sink. It reduces total heat transfer to the chamber. Caseless doesn't, and so it heats up extremely quickly. Which is a massive issue in combat, you know, when you may have to cycle a lot of rounds in a short time.
The problem isn't 5.56. The M4 is still going to be the service rifle. The M7 is going to be the combat rifle of the close combat force (Infantry,Cav,Combat Engineers). The problem is it's no longer infantry vs infantry, but infantry vs infantry and artillery with near-peer adversaries being very artillery centric, something the US forces are deficient in. We can't allow our infantry formations to get fixed by enemy forces only to get destroyed by their artillery.
How does the weight of the rifle (Fully loaded) stack up against the .308 version?
Patriot Mobil guilty of connecting Chinese made phones!
So they’re a sellout just like everyone else
Explain
@@ericsalazar2337Hard to make things here when crybaby unions and government regulations make things artificially expensive.
@@georgewhitworth9742 the rules and regulations with everything are so blatantly broken and backwards I don’t disagree
The reduced range copper seems to have quite the huge neck in gel. Really need to see how well XM1184 will do. If it's anything like M855A1 and M80A1, it will wreck things, armored, barriered or not :D
I played next to Anthony Munoz and he was the best ever. Before each game he would eat a big plate of refried beans and then shit on himself. His steaming logs would keep the defenders away and made him slippery.
I wonder about barrel life with this round. For GI it doesn't matter, we don't worry about that cost, but I'll be curious to see what comes out in terms of useful service life of barrels and bolts with this ammo.
4-5 MOA is horrible. A good AR even with M855 or M193 will do 2 MOA or better and sub MOA with a load it likes. As it stands I dont think this will catch on with its current price, size/weight, and accuracy. Now if Ruger chambers it in its SFAR that fixes the size/weight and then if ammo availability, price, and its accuracy are fixed then I could see it catching on.
You must have a special M4 if you get 2 MOA with M855. The best I've gotten is around 3 MOA with M193, the M855 is generally even less accurate.
@Militaryarmschannel Im not talking about a military M4. I can't speak to their accuracy. However, commercially available ARs can and will do better than 3+ MOA with M193. Even my cheap Ruger MPR will do 2 MOA with military ball and sub MOA with my 62gr GD handloads.
@@Nick-sx6jm Military M4's are 3-4 MOA guns with M855 and M855A1 (do several 10 round groups not just 3 round groups) that is in line with the mil-spec.
the brass cased rounds are bullet for bullet weight a slightly reduced .270 winchester.....same as the 7.62x51 is a slightly reduced 30-06...go figure as the 30-06 is parent to all 3
but the steel based round is a horse of a different color
5.56 or 7.62x51 NATO forever.
I can guarantee the military has multiple loadings, including some match level ammo for precision shooting. Just like they have done with the m16 platform they will have dozens of variations for different mission requirements. They may already have sass version with a 16-20” barrel.
lol what a joke of a rifle. Sig is such a joke to all those that don’t love paying to beta test for them