@@ronaldmcreagann6343 Mostly that's because by the time the USAF came in and the interbranch naming convention was put to paper, "X" already had a deeply cemented definition for purely experimental aircraft. So, they settled on Y for prototype or pre-production test aircraft.
I'm here because he reviewed some of Nick's content and have been suggesting him to do reviews on Mike, Brandon, Aaron, Scott's channels. I think he would get a kick out of Scotts intro skits, aarons autism and mikes massive male member... Oh and Matt is pretty cool too lol but this guy being a vet im not sure how he'll take Brandon the war hero....
25:20 - 550 to 600 yards, not feet; triple the distance. The goal of this rifle is to make the effective range closer to double the effective range of the m16, which can only really stretch out to 300 or so. The range of the round is only half the package, too - the scope they adopted with this is something like a 1-10x that calculates drop (built in rangefinder and computerized BDC) and lights up a point on a screen within to indicate where to hold.
@@m2hmghb rarely, but you can’t deny that even their expensive options are nice. To be clear as well, I’m fairly certain the expensive part of that scope is mostly the FCS, which can attach and detach from the scope. The scope itself should be relatively cheap, since it’s just a 1-10x sight really.
@@ronaldmcreagann6343 I don't disagree, but I don't trust the budget people anymore. Look at how much they wasted trying to get a more accurate M16 - when all they needed to do was ask any sniper "how much more accurate does a scope make you?" Or how they had to cancel the XM 25 program because no one looked up the rules on exploding bullets.
@@m2hmghb ok, to be fair to both of those, the XM25 was, on a technicality, a war crime, but only removed from service because it malfunctioned one time and did what it was supposed to do to not make the situation worse, and the whole M16 issue was due to scopes not being a cheap thing to simply produce for most frontline infantrymen. Scopes around the M16s days were relegated to marksmen and Snipers because A: they could benefit most from them, and B: Scopes were (comparatively) more expensive to produce en mass until later on, when we started to produce things like the ACOG. It was a bit of a compounding issue that, in hindsight, had a simple solution, but in practice wasn’t really a thought in the realm of practicality.
I know while in Afghanistan using 5.56 rounds we all felt like we were basically throwing rocks when we were down in the valleys while they were up on the hills and mountain sides.
To be fair, being on the low ground during a firefight has already got you at a disadvantage. Those who have the high ground have superior cover effectiveness just due to basic geometry. Any reasonable rifle round for general infantry use is going to have difficulty in such a situation.
@marine6680 Trust me I'm well aware lol I felt like I was in a vulnerable position for all 8 months I was there. I did spend 2 months on higher ground but we got shelled and shot at every day and on top of that the place was haunted. You can say I'm crazy but I've talked to a lot of different marines that said the same thing.
@@BigMoore1232 Unfortunately SOPs, required routes, existing roads and other factors tend to put you at a disadvantage. Places you never want to be on a patrol... At the bottom of the hill, and the very top of the hill.
7.62x51mm Nato has the same problems as 5.56. It was designed in the 40s and they have gone as far as they can with improving armor penetration. They need the increased pressures to get the ability and the rounds can't handle it.
@@fallskjermjeger. development started in the 40s. Winchester brought it out commercially in 52. 7.62 nato was adopted in 54. I said it was designed in the 40s, not it was adopted in the 40s.
27:47 Not military but it's similar to my school where the seniors left and now we're getting a new gym, band uniforms, new turf on the football field. Like they leave and now we're upgrading a lot lol.
Please do more Garand Thumb videos. I don't know about everyone else, but I've seen just about every one of his videos. It is great to see your perspective on them. It can only do you both good.
Oh man, skipping the ads at the start when Charlie is on is tough. Charlie makes his best jokes during those ads! "You should always shoot single fire." *me in Iraq with my m249*
At 100 yards .277 has less bullet drop than 5.56 and .308 but .308 carries more energy. At 500 yards .277 out performs both. (.277 and 5.56 from a 16 inch barrel and .308 from a 24 inch barrel)
I mostly agree. What I don't agree on in the energy that both rounds carry. I mean you are going to have roughly the same energy transfer with a 150gr .308 going 2800 fps and 135gr .277 going 3000 fps, both of which giving you about 3600J of energy. Though .277 is supposed to have better BMI Edit: pls correct me if I am wrong
@@mgreene1409 You're talking about the performance of the .277 out of a 16" barrel in your original comment, which is irrelevant to the performance of the rounds out of this rifle. Edit: Spelling
To answer your question about range, when GT is calling out numbers it's usually yards or meters. That's just the way we gauge everything since hash marks on our optics are based on hundred yard increments.
@@pranc236 My Drill Sgts used yards, but that was likely a habit of them using the terms interchangeably, so I assumed that was a common experience for most people who went through basic.
@@lobokurg2786 not saying he didnt but that is also his mistake. Mil spec equipment is in meters and has been since my dad was in circa 1968. Even that date system the military uses is the international date and not the commonly used one americans use.
At 9:27, answer to your question: Is it better than a 7.62? It goes faster and futher. Faster, velocity is what gives you penertation in general, flesh and the important one, armour. It is at the moment magnitudes more expensive per round, in multiple x's and the barrel pressure is higher than a .50 calibre / 12.7mm round so the barrels are also extremely expensive!
It's a pretty poor choice for everyone else but SIG. There's very little about this cartridge that is impressive - all its performance benefits are due to its simple hybrid case choice. Comparing the .277 to a .308 in equivalent barrel lengths and similar bullet weights you get similar energy levels at a lower peak pressure (F=PA) - so suddenly that additional barrel wear doesn't seem worth it. Furthermore, taking that same hybrid case design and applying it to either 6.5 creedmore or the .308 cartridge and the benefits utterly disappear - yet that would mean procurement don't have to pay a fortune for SIG's boutique cartridge and platforms. It's beyond moronic.
11:50 this actually happens quite a bit with garand thumb, especially with SIG, when they were showing off the xm250, mg338 and other rifles, they had representatives from sig talking about the thought process behind the guns
700 yards is about 640 meters, glad you enjoyed the video and happy to watch more. I wouldn't worry about taking views, most people come to watch after
5.56 isn’t and never was intended to “injure”. That’s a logical fallacy put forth by people who doubt the capability of the round. It was designed to be a lighter round that could be carried in higher quantities because studies have shown whoever carries more ammo generally wins a gunfight. And out of a 20” barrel you’re looking at just around 3000fps (depending on twist rate and ammo weight). It is more than capable of killing and was designed to do so. Designing a round to “wound” wouldn’t really make sense either since at that point you’re already to the point of lethal force. The issue with 5.56 is maintaining penetration at distance since the 5.56 has such a steep velocity drop off and its small size. .277 fury (in the hybrid case) still packs whallops of speed and doesn’t fall off as steeply and has the mass to cause a world of hurt at distance TLDR: 5.56 wasn’t designed to wound. It just isn’t great at penetrating materials at longer engagement distances
My understanding of 5.56 is that somewhere just shy of Mach 3, the hydrostatic shock from a 5.56 produces a massive temporary cavity relative to its size, the problem being that it drops below that all too important velocity by 200-300 yards and thus winds up being far less effective. Add to that the light weight making it more susceptible to wind, and it's understandable wanting something for increased range engagements. Within that range, however, it's incredibly effective.
So youve watched the SPEAR vid and the vid on the round....now you need to watch the one for the new optic that goes along with the SPEAR and new round. The gun, the round and the optic were all designed to work together as a weapons package. Also the new lmg vid is epic too. That new gun+round are incredible!!
5.56 wasnt designed to wound. It was simply a smaller round which meant troops could carry more ammo and put more fire down range. As a caliber it's fairly weak. It's used for varmints in the US, and in many (but not all) states it's not even legal to hunt deer with.
Yeah I don’t know where that came from. I think it was some feel-good propaganda campaign in Vietnam. The fact is that we have spent so much time fighting enemies that don’t have body armor that 5.56 was sufficient. People actually aren’t that hard to stop. Now that we have very real threats from armies that wear armor as standard issue, we need something with a little more punch.
fun fact their is no military document stating the 5.56 was designed to wound. this is one of those saying that keeps being repeated but it isnt true. the way the 5.56 worked in the m16 the bullet would implode within 250 yards, and with the 1 in 11 twist it would tumble in the target if they were hit at further distance. the 5.56 was chosen because the terminal damage was way worse then what you would expect from a .223 diameter bullet or a larger bullet zipping straight thru.
OPSEC. This is a round designed to defeat body armor, that’s why the specific military grade ammo is unavailable/not discussed. The round they are using is not the full power version of 6.8 Fury
I believe one main reason they didn't just use .308/7.62, or for that matter, even the 6.5 Creedmore that the SCAR20 uses, is because if they made an 80K PSI version of an existing round there would be too much danger of it being put into older weapons and blowing them up.
On the topic of being able to carry fewer rounds. In my opinion that is more than offset by the fact that you now only need to supply one type of ammo for both your rifles and squad automatics since they´ll be in the same caliber. That means every ammo supply drop and every vehicle will have plenty of ammo for the riflemen to dip into, rather than running into situations where you are green on 5.56 but tapped out on 7.62 for the squad automatic machine gun or vice versa, and thus need to withdraw because your doctrine only really works if you have both types of weapons running.
5.56 isn't going anywhere for a while. The current plan, which is subject to change, is that the .277 and the M7 will be issued to Army infantry, but all other combat roles are still going to be using 5.56 rifles. It's also possible that the army determines the negatives of the .277 outweight the positives and the amount of them issued gets rolled back to being a squad weapon, not an individual one.
Any weapon system in it's trial phase is given the XM designation(for eXperimental I guess). If it's formally adopted and added into the supply system etc, they drop the X. That means that if you ever come across an older weapon system that is known as an "XM", it means that it didn't make it out of the prototype phase and wasn't adopted. If new variants are created, they add the A1/A2 and so on behind the M-number. The system has it's internal logic, but it can be really confusing to outsiders.
FYI the muzzle velocity for most generic ball ammunition for 7.62x51 mm NATO is around 2600-2700 feet per second with a 160 grain projectile, give or take 8-10 grains of projectile weight depending on the exact ammo. 6.8x51mm with that steel casehead is pushing almost 3100 feet per second out of a much shorter barrel than most old .30 cal battle rifles. EDIT: 6.8mm projectiles they're using in the video they said weighed 113 grain, forgot to include that lol.
5.56 isn't even meant to injure enemies at all. Statistical studies of military firefights have shown that they produce one casualty per 10,000 rounds fire, or even higher. Most battlefield injuries are from explosives and shrapnel, not bullets, which is in keeping with tactical doctrine. You use small arms fire to pin down the enemy and limit their movement, and then call in artillery or an airstrike on your target. But this is all academic. What 6.8 Fury will really do is twofold: 1) It will simplify logistics. The reason troops in World War 2 carried full-power rifle cartridges was because they shot the same ammunition as their machine gun. It is not a coincidence that that the Kar98k and the MG42 fired the same round, or that the M1 Garand and the M1919 fired the .30-06. But the reason that fell apart in the Cold War is that other studies showed that a trooper armed with an automatic weapon was far, far more likely to fire it, and the M14 and FAL proved to be far too punishing and inaccurate firing full-powered 7.62x51 on full auto. So, we got 5.56 which made controllable assault rifles a reality for NATO. Presumably the conceit with the M7 is that we've run a 100% professional military for over 50 years, and recoil absorption technology has improved since then as well, meaning you can now get the best of both worlds: fully automatic small arms, and a cartridge which can be used in a squad support weapon to fire further out.
13:52 make no mistake, even if a bullet is stopped by body armor, it can still be very lethal. Instead of a tiny bullet ripping through your body you get a shredded armor plate rapidly compressing against your chest, possibly resulting in broken ribs or a collapsed lung. There are videos online of a new sort of armor plate stopping a .50 BMG round. You genuinely have more of a chance surviving a 50 cal to your chest if you weren't wearing that plate carrier.
Retired room temperature IQ Marine here - I retired in 1996, and I've been looking at new gear (and training) since about six months after I retired and saying, "Oh, man, I wish we'd had that . . . " often enough that I know my wife is tired of hearing it, although she's a good sport (and a good shot.) For frame of reference, when I retired things were so different that only snipers and match competition shooters got optics; the rest of us used post-and-peep iron sights. That said, any Marine who shot Rifle Expert with any version of an M16 was consistently putting good groups into center mass on a human torso target at 500 meters (after flipping the rear sight aperture from short range to long range.) One of my brothers was one of those match shooters. At the All Marine Corps matches in 1990, he won High Tyro in an event where he started standing at the 1,000-yard line, with an M14 with iron sights. He knew that somewhere along the line of targets - didn't know where - someone was going to pop a human silhouette target on a stick above the berm, walk along the line - he didn't know which direction they'd be going, either - and after they'd passed five targets at normal walking speed, the target would disappear back into the butts. He had to wait until he saw the target, then get prone, make any adjustments to his sights he thought he needed, and hit the target before it dropped back into the butts. He hit it more times than his competitors. His trophy was a brand new M1 Garand. Best shooter I've ever known. Re that .277 Fury, my bet is that it stays supersonic past 1,000 meters and probably has as much energy as a .300 Win Mag, let alone a .308 or .30-06, past 500.
11:31 the ten inch clean penetration happened under nearly ideal condition. GT stated at the outset that the clear gel was not set up to simulate flesh. An actual human torso, especially when you include clothes, will vary in its resistance to the bullet. Skin is strong, that is why we take it off of animals to use for things like tension drive belts in mills. There's also bone in both the front and back.
Sig actually brought Garand Thumb out to test the M7 along with all it's attachments (the military's new scope for example). They also talk as to why they use the 277, what it means for the boots on the ground etc (a lot of the people who helped design it are/were military if I remember correctly)
If you come back to Maine, the Sig Sauer HQ is in New Hampshire, just to the west of Maine, in Exeter NH. There is a lovely building called the Sig Sauer Experience Center right at the entrance to their campus. In the Sig Sauer Experience Center, you can try most of their guns and silencers ( I don't think they let you use the machine guns... yet. ) Its very professional. Backlit walls of cool guns (very "John Wick"). You can take them down and handle them. Helpful salespeople tell you all about them. Play with optics, play with suppressors. Then you go to the indoor range, try 'em out (for a small rental fee, of course). If you tell them you were a marksman with the Royal Marines and have a TH-cam channel, they may even let you use the outdoor 1000 meter range. ;)
Hey Waffles! .556 was not created to wound people. It was adopted so people could carry rounds in bulk. This was due to the crappy training and lack of accuracy of the early "AR" in Vietnam. Basically, praying and spraying.
Yes, and during the Vietnam war some bean counter came up with X number of bullets fired means X number of kills. Their logic said more bullets fired means more kills.
From what I understand the round/rifle combo is only half the magic. The other half is the new optic that does automatic range-finding, calculates drop, adjusts for air temperature and humidity, and moves the reticle for you so even average shots are getting accurate hits and good shots are taking people’s eyes out at several hundred metres. Ok, I’m exaggerating, but only a bit. It sounds like it might be the kind of jump up that early optics were over iron sights.
The XM in the XM7 refers to it being an experimental or limited use weapon until it is standardized as a TC-STD in MIL-STD. The M17, as it is called now, was the XM17 during production, and the requisition for the new sidearm was called the XM17 Modular Handgun System program. Sig's P320 was selected as the XM17 and the XM18, and then once they entered service they became the M17 and M18. The M7, from the XM7 Next Generation Squad Weapon program, has just now reached the stage of field deployment, so it was standardized from the XM7 into the M7. The XM250 has also begun to see field deployment, so it will now be standardized as the M250. As a side note, I wish the Army had kept the NGSW program as the XM5 program. The XM5 and XM250 were going to be replacing the M4 and the M249, so it fit so much more, but Colt had a trademark on M5, so the Army decided to change it to XM7 and M7.
I am old. When I served we used the G3. Loved it. Never liked the 5.56 much, but this looks good. Americans usually mean yards when they talk shooting.
The armor caught it but can you imagine the internal damage all of that force could have on bones and flesh. And, I have looked at the Thumb videos now that you have shown them.
Hey man you should also watch the video about the M157 scope. The whole NGSW program is about the combination of a new rifle, a violent ammunition amd the ability to accurately engage target at long range. It'll totally blow you mind after thinking what an average soldier can acheive with a m7 and a m157 scope.
You should check how the NGSW bid from General Dynamics, now the Lonestar RM277. It's right up your alley as some one trained on a bullpup platform, and would've alleviated many of the concerns raised against the SIG M7 (chamber pressure, overall length, weight), had it been adopted.
The reasons the US military is testing and adopting the .277 fury (in a limited capacity at the moment) is due to a few factors: terminal performance, external ballistics, and advancements in optics making longer range marksmanship more common and more easy. Terminal Ballistics: the new .277 fury round is VERY similar to the .270 Winchester ballistically, it uses a hybrid casing to oush a similarly weighted projectile at nearly the same velocity but from a shorter barrel using a shorter cartridge. Tye .270 winchester is a well known and well regarded hunting round used for animals as large as moose worldwide. It fires a 130gr bullet at roughly 3100 feet per second from the muzzle using a 24 inch barrel, the new .277 Fury fires a 113gr bullet at just over 3000 feet per second from a 13.5 inch barrel so not as much raw power but MUCH more efficient use of cartridge space and powder. The slight difference in total power is within 2-3% of each other while using a smaller cartridge and rifle than could be used with .270 Winchester. And a more aerodynamically efficent projectile than 7.62 NATO so it will perform better at longer ranges than 7.62 External ballistics: the new .277fury cartridge when loaded with a match round of some type (Open tip match, or tipped match preferably) can reach distances of 1000m with relative ease and deoending on bullet design and construction still deliver devastating performance at that range. Better ballistics coefficients and better cartridge design makes longer range shots easier. Optics advances: the rifle is set to be paired with the new Vortex "XM177" (i think that's its designation) optic which has a ballistic calculator and laser rangefinder built into the optic, those two things make a MASSIVE difference in shooting long range and the scope literally lets you program your bullet's BC and velocity into it then uses that in conjunction with the laser rangefinder to twll you exactly where your bullet is going to land (not accounting for wind, but kestrels and other tools exist to fill in that missing puzzle piece) In testing, using the rifle and optic paired together, basic infantrymen were able to make rapid, repeatable, and reliable hits on man-sized targets at distances of 800m with no additional marksmanship training. Its an "Easy" button, a higher hit probability at longer ranges, and better terminal performance when the bullet gets there.
The thing about the M-7 is the US Military is also purchasing 7.62 barrels along with the .277 and the lower will accept 7.62 magazines. So in a pinch, the US will still be able to share ammo.
17:10 My dude, that's Charlie. An absolute chaotic foil to the more serious energy GT (Mike) brings. There's entire compilations of Charlie's antics. Plus, he and Micha (GT's cameraman and editor, while also making content for his own channel) was on GunMagWarehouse's podcast, The Mag Life, in which Charlie discusses his superpower, Trolling.
17:09 He joined the team not so long ago, there is a Best of Charlie montage on TH-cam that I think you should check out. The guy is hilarious and he brings the videos to a whole new level when he is there.
I always wondered about the effectiveness of the .556 in the desert or where long distances are involved. I noted that they equipped some soldiers with M-14s shooting the 7.62 in the Middle East. I used the M-14 in boot camp and liked that rifle.
any times someone asks "what is ballistics gel" my first thought is they must not of watched Mythbusters LOL. Getting some type of Army Rep on these channels would be great and free PR for them as well as being able to reach more people that might want to join the military. That .277 round is a beast can't say i have ever seen reactions like that from "small" rifles
When I was a teenager in the early 60s I had an 03-A3 Springfield, a version of the WW1 rifle. Surplus ball ammo, 30 cal,(30-06) was available cheap. I could buy 100 rounds for $6.00. There was a dried up riverbed nearby that my brothers and I would go to for shooting. There was an old wrecked car we’d always put a couple rounds through, but the one target that really blew my mind was a steel cylinder around an old rusty pump. The steel was about 3/4 inches thick. That .30 ball ammo would penetrate that cylinder from 25 yards. Always made me wonder about those war movies where a guy would hide behind a wooden door or wall. Don’t think that was very good cover.😂
150 grains is the standard weight for 7.62, the bullet leaves the muzzle going about 2700 fps out of an 18" barrel. The 6.8x51 is about the same power, but because of the better coefficient of friction, the M-7 will have a longer range and accuracy.
When you have a longer bullet, you get a better coefficient of friction, which means the bullet retains velocity better, you get longer range and better accuracy. That's why the 77 Grain Open Tip Match bullets are more accurate than either flavor of 5.56: 55 grain XM-193 or 62 grain M-855 (SS109) (plus the steel penetrator is hard to keep consistent during manufacture). The new 5.56 M-855A1 bullet is machined out of bronze with the steel penetrator dead center on the nose. Because bronze weighs less than lead, the bullet is longer to maintain the 62 grain projectile weight (better coefficient of friction, better velocity retention, better range, better accuracy) But you're getting a bullet roughly half the weight of the .227 Fury/6.8x51 bullet (110-130 grains) going slower (about 2700 fps in a 14.5" barreled M-4 versus only a 13.5" barrel in the M-7). The British and other NATO countries were all fired up to make a .280 caliber round the NATO standard until the US insisted on making 7.62x51 the standard and then 5.56 after two years of the beastly M-14, which was supreme overkill in Vietnam. They were carrying a rifle designed to make hits at 1000 yards when they could only see 50 yards ahead of them in the jungle. The only thing 7.62 had going for it was it could punch through vegetation without as much deflection, but if you're shooting through bushes, you can't see your target, so you don't know if you're making hits. Most of the US's design decisions were based on a European woodlands environment against the Russians. Now they're making decisions based on desert warfare, so obviously the next war will be in the Arctic. :)
I appologize if someone has answered this with better information, but from what I am given to understand the .277 Fury is using a lighter, higher BC, 6.8 mm bullet in what is essentially a similar sized case and amount of powder as the 7.62 NATO. The military cartridge uses a hybrid case with a steel base to reduce weight and contain higher pressures than the civilian catridge. Chances are, whatever Mike is getting for results (unless he is handloading), it could be expected that military round, as issued, will have a higher muzzle velocity as it will be loaded to higher pressures than the 7.62 NATO.
The optic is a Nightforce Optics ATACR scope with a 50mm* or 56mm* objective lens. (*Which specific NF model, I do not know. I would need more information about the optic.)
The 5.56 is for wounding claim baffles me... It is a deadly round. In its original loading, M194 55gr FMJ, out of the 1 in 12 twist barrels in the M16A1, it was a devious ittle bullet. It was called the small bullet that makes a big hole. It would tumble and disintegrate, and do a lot of damage. Switching to the M885 62gr FMJ Penetrator round is what caused the problem with inconsistent lethality. Moving to the Open Tip Match loads like the USMC MK 318 62gr OTM, and the Army's MK 262 77gr OTM really imprived terminal performance, and improved accuracy. Antidotal stories from some SF guys who have used both preferred the 62gr as being better at dropping bad guys, but the 77gr did better when shooting further out.
also have to remember the army is issuing a new optic that is equipped with its own rangefinder and Ballistic calculator that turn every competent rifleman into a marksman.
Two rounds to punch through level 4 body armor and higher accuracy at longer distances seem worth the weight trade-off. These rounds are both awesome and scary at the same time.
The round does out perform the 7.62 Nato, significantly and is more in line with the 7.62x54R. The rifle will also be getting a vortex optic (1-8x30) wihich will give incredible accuracy, basically turning each rifleman into a sharpshooter. The rifle will not completely replace the M4, which will be maintained for support troops.
Projectiles tend to penetrate further in test gels than they do in real flesh. The type of gel can afect it as well. Guys who hunt can report that a round that reliably penetrates further than the width of their game animals, will often not exit the animal. They are using something called Clear Ballistic Gel. It is a proprietary formulation meant to be an easier to use alternative to the official spec gel. A lot of TH-cam channels use it because it has some advantages. Officail ballistic gel is made using essentially unflavored jello. Its industrial gelatin, but made from the same stuff. It is mixed at a specific ratio and kept at a specific temperature. It more closely mimics real flesh performance showing less penetration, but it is still not exact. You will see some amount of deeper penetration in the gel than in real world use. Due to needing to be kept at low temps, and mixed and tested for calibration. There is a process to test calibration using a BB at a specific FPS speed... Not many guys want to deal with all that. Plus its not clear, so you cannot see what is happening, you must cut it open and examine it. The ballistic dummies are made with something else, it is more stable than real gel, but still can melt on a hot sunny day.
The idea was to develop a round that was smaller (but larger than 5.56), lighter, faster, and more accurate than 7.62, but could deliver as much, if not more energy into the target. The bi-metal case design is needed for the ammo case to survive at the higher pressures needed to achieve the desired peak performance from the round.
Please check out the MK18 video. The MK18 is the CQB variant of the M4, which is both beloved and synonymous with special forces. The Mod 1 had a 10.3" barrel, and the more recent URGI is 11.5". The video shows off the M7's version of the MK18.
Standard 5.56 load is the 62 grain M855A1 out of a 14.5 inch barrel M4 carbine and is moving about 2800 fps. The standard load for 7.62x51 is the 147 grain M80 out of a 22 inch barrel and is moving at about the same speed as the 5.56. The .277 Fury or 6.8x51 is beating both of those in velocity. That’s incredible because it has the same barrel length as the M4 carbine, but is firing a bullet with twice the mass of M855A1. 7.62x51 out of a 14.5 inch barrel actually loses a lot of velocity in comparison. I would estimate it around 2300-2400 fps. Speed beats armor and velocity is king when determining how much kinetic energy a projectile has. The 277 Fury is beating armor while still having a lethal punch afterwords.
Yes it was the XM7. Now that it has been adopted it is the M7. The X in military trials designation stands for experimental. All trials weapons are given an XM designator.
If i remember my conversions correctly, 7.62×51mm is 147 grains traveling @ 2800 ft/sec, which comes out to ~2,550 ft-lbs of energy 5.56×45mm is 62 grains @ 3100 ft/sec with ~1,325 ft-lbs. .277 Fury they said was 113 grains @ 3061 ft/sec which conversts to approximately 2,625 ft-lbs I think. So .277 Fury is roughly in the same ballpark as 7.62 NATO.
So a big reason for going with this new ammo is the chamber pressure. You'll get higher muzzle velocity and energy out of a 16 inch barrel with 277 fury than you would with 308 out of a 24 inch barrel. The two main complaints with 5.56 were its maximum useful range and poor terminal ballistics at that range. This change should enable basic infantry to engage and defeat threats at distance without employing auxiliary assets like a vehicle mounted 50 cal.
A fun video to watch is from Ballistic High Speed Comparing different type of rounds shooting into water, it gives quite amazing findings. And awsome ultra high speed footage I do feel like this rifle is gonna be a more specific role type rifle, like a DMR. Its crazy to think, just from logistic wise, that this is gonna be standard rifle for every person in the military. Let alone people being able to handle it, recoil wise and being accurate, and making sure every person is trained on the rifle or keeping that training at a level on par with decent performance.
What I’ve read is that the .277 fury is a reaction to the long engagement distances during the GWOT. Just as 556 was a reaction to Vietnam where engagement distances got a lot closer in the jungle. Is it a good idea? Idk, I guess we will see
It was a reaction to the increased use of body armor by china and russia. Russia might be using more cardboard then actual armor but the reason is still valid.
A reaction that resulted in a completely non-sensical cartridge. If solid-body penetration was what they were seeking, improving the sectional density, material hardness and using the hybrid case technology on existing .308 platforms would have achieved the exact same goal. Compare a 110gr .308 with close to equivalent barrel lengths and suddenly this cartridge isn't so impressive. Of course a full-power cartridge is going to out-perform an intermediate one, but when you are doing so at the expense of barrel life and weight, its not exactly a smart trade. This is just another short-stroke gas piston system, there's nothing high tech or ground breaking here - probably one of the least impressive options from the NGSW program.
The new shortened sig spear isn’t called the Mk18, the Mk18 is a 10.3 inch barreled variant of the M4 carbine. He’s saying “is this the US military’s new mk18” because it’s a similar concept, a shorter version of the standard service rifle. The shortened sig Spear is called the Spear Assaulter K, formerly the Raptor (which I think is a better name but whatever). Also, as he said, ballistic gel is NOT a 1 to 1. So 10 inches of penetration in ballistic gel is not equivalent to 10 inches of penetration in human tissue. SIG has done a lot with Garand Thumb, and while they did develop the cartridge, they will not be making the military ammo. The military has their own ammunition plant, and I don’t believe they have released the information on performance of the military issue 6.8 round
@@eastonnida8213the US military doesn’t designate rifles like that my guy. Never have. And Raptor isn’t a military name. It’s the name given to it by SIG. people seem to misunderstand that. The rifle is the SIG spear, the military designation for the SIG spear is the M7.
As for the weight of the riffle and ammo, the US Army has been field testing non-powered load bearing exoskeletons. My guess is they'll be standard issue in 3 to 5 years.
Another note, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re carrying 50% less ammo. The basic combat load for the M110A1, which is a 7.62 rifle, is 5 magazines, or 100 rounds. The .277 is a similar weight, and the weight of 5 loaded 7.62 or .277 magazines is the same as the weight of 7 5.56 magazines, or 210 rounds
Great video! You need to review the new army optic that’s going on all these rifles. Garand Thumb has an exclusive video using the Vortex XM-157 optic. It’s crazy! Makes Call of duty become reality on the battlefield. All the best from the USA
M7 is one more try at the One Rifle to Rule Them All. They were having problems with range in Afghanistan, but they also had a lot of urban fighting in Iraq. So this is their attempt at having a round that's good at both.
What I usually do, is that I watch the videos of ''Garand thumb'' and then a few days later you post yours, and to know your opinion I also watch yours, so I don't think you're stealing views, I see you more as a complement that adds value for your expirienced commentary.
"X" prefix is "Experimental.' The "XM" is basically an indicator that it is a trials rifle. Now that the "X" has been dropped, indicates that it has been approved and is is a combat approved rifle. We do the same with new aircraft. "YF-22 Raptor" (prototype), having passed trials and been the chosen aircraft from the "Advanced Tactical Fighter" program, became the "F-22 Raptor," There are different prefixes depending on development status. For example, "XB-70" is an aircraft in the experimental stage of development. The XB-70 Valkyrie (a mach-3 delta wing bomber) program was cancelled. Similar things occur with other defense systems and weapons (rifles, ammo, missiles, explosives, ships, helicopters, etc) being developed for future military use.
"XM" means it's still being field tested ("Experimental"), when it becomes general issue, it loses the "X". The US military still issues the 55 grain fmj XM-193 round because of the large number of old M-16's and M-16A2's still in service while the general issue rounds are the M-855 and M-855A1 designed for the M-16A2, M-4, and variants of both. (The M-16A2 and M-4 have a different rifling pitch designed for the heavier and longer M-855 and M-855A1 rounds). "Mk" is usually a Navy or Marine prefix while GAU is usually an Air Force prefix. They redesignated it the M-7 because field trials showed a few problems which they fixed. I'm sure there are videos or documents with details, I don't know, but I do know the M-250 was correct out of the box, with no tweaks needed. Sig wants to install a folding stock adapter, but it would make the M-250 longer than the design specs when unfolded.
7.62 travels 2,670 fps with 22" barrel. This new ammo being over 3,000 fps so there is that. Also the .277 Fury generates 80,000 PSI, 5.56 is 60,000 and 7.62 is 62,000
I think you make a good point about price. Because the 5.56 has been in use for so long, not to mention that it is the standard NATO round, we have the advantage of economies of scale to source it. So now we have a round that is only used by the U.S. Army and how many manufacturers are there? Logistically, I see this as a problem.
5.56isnt going away. Most troops will still get an M16 or M4, but any front line troops are supposed to get this new rifle. Also, this new round is set to replace 7.62 as well. There is also a medium machine gun coming that is using this round. The new MG is actually really nice. Much lighter in weight. This round is a 6.8 caliber BTW.
The X designation is for Experimental. Since it’s now been adopted, it’s just the M7.
Yup. Although it's still also referred to as the XM 7 because it hasn't been fully fielded yet.
@@m2hmghbnot FULLY but I have seen images of the 101st airborne training with their new M7s
@@CharlieFoxtrot128 Yea, part of the 75th and a battalion of the 101st got them for field testing/use.
Yeah, same thing goes for other things as well actually, like aircraft and tanks, though aircraft in the modern day are designated as ‘YF’.
@@ronaldmcreagann6343 Mostly that's because by the time the USAF came in and the interbranch naming convention was put to paper, "X" already had a deeply cemented definition for purely experimental aircraft. So, they settled on Y for prototype or pre-production test aircraft.
I doubt you’re taking views away from him. I’d wager that most of your viewers are also watch Mr.Thumb as well
Yep lol, seen all of the GT videos already but it's fun to see other people check him out for the first time. Been waiting for him to meet Charlie 😂
Agreed, I watch a lot of his content.
Agree
lol,exactly. Been following for years….
I'm here because he reviewed some of Nick's content and have been suggesting him to do reviews on Mike, Brandon, Aaron, Scott's channels. I think he would get a kick out of Scotts intro skits, aarons autism and mikes massive male member... Oh and Matt is pretty cool too lol but this guy being a vet im not sure how he'll take Brandon the war hero....
25:20 - 550 to 600 yards, not feet; triple the distance. The goal of this rifle is to make the effective range closer to double the effective range of the m16, which can only really stretch out to 300 or so. The range of the round is only half the package, too - the scope they adopted with this is something like a 1-10x that calculates drop (built in rangefinder and computerized BDC) and lights up a point on a screen within to indicate where to hold.
Yeah, the XM157. Very nice scope. But expensive I’m sure though.
@@ronaldmcreagann6343 When has the US government come up with a cost effective solution?
@@m2hmghb rarely, but you can’t deny that even their expensive options are nice. To be clear as well, I’m fairly certain the expensive part of that scope is mostly the FCS, which can attach and detach from the scope. The scope itself should be relatively cheap, since it’s just a 1-10x sight really.
@@ronaldmcreagann6343 I don't disagree, but I don't trust the budget people anymore. Look at how much they wasted trying to get a more accurate M16 - when all they needed to do was ask any sniper "how much more accurate does a scope make you?" Or how they had to cancel the XM 25 program because no one looked up the rules on exploding bullets.
@@m2hmghb ok, to be fair to both of those, the XM25 was, on a technicality, a war crime, but only removed from service because it malfunctioned one time and did what it was supposed to do to not make the situation worse, and the whole M16 issue was due to scopes not being a cheap thing to simply produce for most frontline infantrymen. Scopes around the M16s days were relegated to marksmen and Snipers because A: they could benefit most from them, and B: Scopes were (comparatively) more expensive to produce en mass until later on, when we started to produce things like the ACOG. It was a bit of a compounding issue that, in hindsight, had a simple solution, but in practice wasn’t really a thought in the realm of practicality.
I know while in Afghanistan using 5.56 rounds we all felt like we were basically throwing rocks when we were down in the valleys while they were up on the hills and mountain sides.
yeah me too.
To be fair, being on the low ground during a firefight has already got you at a disadvantage.
Those who have the high ground have superior cover effectiveness just due to basic geometry. Any reasonable rifle round for general infantry use is going to have difficulty in such a situation.
@marine6680 Trust me I'm well aware lol I felt like I was in a vulnerable position for all 8 months I was there. I did spend 2 months on higher ground but we got shelled and shot at every day and on top of that the place was haunted. You can say I'm crazy but I've talked to a lot of different marines that said the same thing.
@@BigMoore1232 Unfortunately SOPs, required routes, existing roads and other factors tend to put you at a disadvantage.
Places you never want to be on a patrol... At the bottom of the hill, and the very top of the hill.
The Danes were very happy with the MG3.
7.62x51mm Nato has the same problems as 5.56. It was designed in the 40s and they have gone as far as they can with improving armor penetration. They need the increased pressures to get the ability and the rounds can't handle it.
50s*
@@fallskjermjeger. development started in the 40s. Winchester brought it out commercially in 52. 7.62 nato was adopted in 54. I said it was designed in the 40s, not it was adopted in the 40s.
You should watch Mike's video on the RM338 the LMG designed to replace the m2 .50BMG and possibly some other weapons systems.
That one was awesome
27:47 Not military but it's similar to my school where the seniors left and now we're getting a new gym, band uniforms, new turf on the football field. Like they leave and now we're upgrading a lot lol.
9:10 He didn’t hear what Charlie said, he just waited for them to stop talking to respond lol.
Charlie is a national treasure for sure...
Please do more Garand Thumb videos. I don't know about everyone else, but I've seen just about every one of his videos. It is great to see your perspective on them. It can only do you both good.
Oh man, skipping the ads at the start when Charlie is on is tough. Charlie makes his best jokes during those ads!
"You should always shoot single fire." *me in Iraq with my m249*
At 100 yards .277 has less bullet drop than 5.56 and .308 but .308 carries more energy. At 500 yards .277 out performs both.
(.277 and 5.56 from a 16 inch barrel and .308 from a 24 inch barrel)
I mostly agree. What I don't agree on in the energy that both rounds carry. I mean you are going to have roughly the same energy transfer with a 150gr .308 going 2800 fps and 135gr .277 going 3000 fps, both of which giving you about 3600J of energy. Though .277 is supposed to have better BMI
Edit: pls correct me if I am wrong
The M7 has a 13" barrel, dude.
@@zackmuller2077 the test results I read used a 140gr .277 and a 168gr .308. I'll take you at your word on the 150gr .308.
@@ThunderTaco206 I never said otherwise.
@@mgreene1409 You're talking about the performance of the .277 out of a 16" barrel in your original comment, which is irrelevant to the performance of the rounds out of this rifle.
Edit: Spelling
To answer your question about range, when GT is calling out numbers it's usually yards or meters. That's just the way we gauge everything since hash marks on our optics are based on hundred yard increments.
It’s from GT’s military training, not optics.
@@aj897longer range scopes tend to go by increments of 100 meters/yards, with little deviation. But yes, it’s also naturally apart of his training.
Military is all in meters not yards. GT does call out both. Optics in the US come in either one very common. For the brits, 100 meters is 110 yards.
@@pranc236 My Drill Sgts used yards, but that was likely a habit of them using the terms interchangeably, so I assumed that was a common experience for most people who went through basic.
@@lobokurg2786 not saying he didnt but that is also his mistake. Mil spec equipment is in meters and has been since my dad was in circa 1968. Even that date system the military uses is the international date and not the commonly used one americans use.
25:10 he's actually saying 550 yards (1 yard is 3 feet) so it's even more insane
At 9:27, answer to your question: Is it better than a 7.62? It goes faster and futher. Faster, velocity is what gives you penertation in general, flesh and the important one, armour. It is at the moment magnitudes more expensive per round, in multiple x's and the barrel pressure is higher than a .50 calibre / 12.7mm round so the barrels are also extremely expensive!
It's a pretty poor choice for everyone else but SIG. There's very little about this cartridge that is impressive - all its performance benefits are due to its simple hybrid case choice. Comparing the .277 to a .308 in equivalent barrel lengths and similar bullet weights you get similar energy levels at a lower peak pressure (F=PA) - so suddenly that additional barrel wear doesn't seem worth it. Furthermore, taking that same hybrid case design and applying it to either 6.5 creedmore or the .308 cartridge and the benefits utterly disappear - yet that would mean procurement don't have to pay a fortune for SIG's boutique cartridge and platforms. It's beyond moronic.
when they were shooting at distance they were shooting at 550-700 yards not feet. one yard is 3 feet
11:50 this actually happens quite a bit with garand thumb, especially with SIG, when they were showing off the xm250, mg338 and other rifles, they had representatives from sig talking about the thought process behind the guns
700 yards is about 640 meters, glad you enjoyed the video and happy to watch more. I wouldn't worry about taking views, most people come to watch after
5.56 isn’t and never was intended to “injure”. That’s a logical fallacy put forth by people who doubt the capability of the round. It was designed to be a lighter round that could be carried in higher quantities because studies have shown whoever carries more ammo generally wins a gunfight. And out of a 20” barrel you’re looking at just around 3000fps (depending on twist rate and ammo weight). It is more than capable of killing and was designed to do so. Designing a round to “wound” wouldn’t really make sense either since at that point you’re already to the point of lethal force. The issue with 5.56 is maintaining penetration at distance since the 5.56 has such a steep velocity drop off and its small size. .277 fury (in the hybrid case) still packs whallops of speed and doesn’t fall off as steeply and has the mass to cause a world of hurt at distance
TLDR: 5.56 wasn’t designed to wound. It just isn’t great at penetrating materials at longer engagement distances
My understanding of 5.56 is that somewhere just shy of Mach 3, the hydrostatic shock from a 5.56 produces a massive temporary cavity relative to its size, the problem being that it drops below that all too important velocity by 200-300 yards and thus winds up being far less effective. Add to that the light weight making it more susceptible to wind, and it's understandable wanting something for increased range engagements. Within that range, however, it's incredibly effective.
@@scubajho And that convenient effect drops off even faster when you're using carbine-length barrels.
So youve watched the SPEAR vid and the vid on the round....now you need to watch the one for the new optic that goes along with the SPEAR and new round. The gun, the round and the optic were all designed to work together as a weapons package.
Also the new lmg vid is epic too. That new gun+round are incredible!!
I just left a message saying the same thing. That scope is incredible!
5.56 wasnt designed to wound. It was simply a smaller round which meant troops could carry more ammo and put more fire down range. As a caliber it's fairly weak. It's used for varmints in the US, and in many (but not all) states it's not even legal to hunt deer with.
Yeah I don’t know where that came from. I think it was some feel-good propaganda campaign in Vietnam. The fact is that we have spent so much time fighting enemies that don’t have body armor that 5.56 was sufficient. People actually aren’t that hard to stop. Now that we have very real threats from armies that wear armor as standard issue, we need something with a little more punch.
Pure fuddlore op
fun fact their is no military document stating the 5.56 was designed to wound. this is one of those saying that keeps being repeated but it isnt true.
the way the 5.56 worked in the m16 the bullet would implode within 250 yards, and with the 1 in 11 twist it would tumble in the target if they were hit at further distance.
the 5.56 was chosen because the terminal damage was way worse then what you would expect from a .223 diameter bullet or a larger bullet zipping straight thru.
OPSEC. This is a round designed to defeat body armor, that’s why the specific military grade ammo is unavailable/not discussed. The round they are using is not the full power version of 6.8 Fury
12:00 the issue is less about desire and more about what can be legally showcased
@originalhuman, they were shooting 500 yards which is 1,500 feet at 1 mil
If I’m not mistaken, his video on the Mk.18 (compact version of the M7) is the video in which he compares the .277 Fury round to the 5.56.
I believe one main reason they didn't just use .308/7.62, or for that matter, even the 6.5 Creedmore that the SCAR20 uses, is because if they made an 80K PSI version of an existing round there would be too much danger of it being put into older weapons and blowing them up.
2 videos today? It must be Christmas early this year keep up the great work
On the topic of being able to carry fewer rounds. In my opinion that is more than offset by the fact that you now only need to supply one type of ammo for both your rifles and squad automatics since they´ll be in the same caliber. That means every ammo supply drop and every vehicle will have plenty of ammo for the riflemen to dip into, rather than running into situations where you are green on 5.56 but tapped out on 7.62 for the squad automatic machine gun or vice versa, and thus need to withdraw because your doctrine only really works if you have both types of weapons running.
5.56 isn't going anywhere for a while. The current plan, which is subject to change, is that the .277 and the M7 will be issued to Army infantry, but all other combat roles are still going to be using 5.56 rifles. It's also possible that the army determines the negatives of the .277 outweight the positives and the amount of them issued gets rolled back to being a squad weapon, not an individual one.
XM is an experimental designation, used for anything from small arms to tanks
Airfraft tend to use YF
“5.56 isn’t meant for killing, it’s meant for wounding/incapacitating”
*laughs in 77 gr open tip match”
Any weapon system in it's trial phase is given the XM designation(for eXperimental I guess). If it's formally adopted and added into the supply system etc, they drop the X.
That means that if you ever come across an older weapon system that is known as an "XM", it means that it didn't make it out of the prototype phase and wasn't adopted. If new variants are created, they add the A1/A2 and so on behind the M-number.
The system has it's internal logic, but it can be really confusing to outsiders.
at 12:07 to answer that, sig has done a video with garand thumb on the xm157 optic and the sig spear
FYI the muzzle velocity for most generic ball ammunition for 7.62x51 mm NATO is around 2600-2700 feet per second with a 160 grain projectile, give or take 8-10 grains of projectile weight depending on the exact ammo. 6.8x51mm with that steel casehead is pushing almost 3100 feet per second out of a much shorter barrel than most old .30 cal battle rifles.
EDIT: 6.8mm projectiles they're using in the video they said weighed 113 grain, forgot to include that lol.
As an American, I have one question and one question only. Are the Royal Marines considered the strongest branch/ service organization in the UK too?
5.56 isn't even meant to injure enemies at all. Statistical studies of military firefights have shown that they produce one casualty per 10,000 rounds fire, or even higher. Most battlefield injuries are from explosives and shrapnel, not bullets, which is in keeping with tactical doctrine. You use small arms fire to pin down the enemy and limit their movement, and then call in artillery or an airstrike on your target.
But this is all academic. What 6.8 Fury will really do is twofold: 1) It will simplify logistics. The reason troops in World War 2 carried full-power rifle cartridges was because they shot the same ammunition as their machine gun. It is not a coincidence that that the Kar98k and the MG42 fired the same round, or that the M1 Garand and the M1919 fired the .30-06.
But the reason that fell apart in the Cold War is that other studies showed that a trooper armed with an automatic weapon was far, far more likely to fire it, and the M14 and FAL proved to be far too punishing and inaccurate firing full-powered 7.62x51 on full auto. So, we got 5.56 which made controllable assault rifles a reality for NATO.
Presumably the conceit with the M7 is that we've run a 100% professional military for over 50 years, and recoil absorption technology has improved since then as well, meaning you can now get the best of both worlds: fully automatic small arms, and a cartridge which can be used in a squad support weapon to fire further out.
Do more Garand Thumb I already watch his videos so you won’t be taking away from him but it’s dope to see your journey through his catalog
Charles is slowly morphing into a serial killer from the 70s
Slowly? He always was
13:52 make no mistake, even if a bullet is stopped by body armor, it can still be very lethal. Instead of a tiny bullet ripping through your body you get a shredded armor plate rapidly compressing against your chest, possibly resulting in broken ribs or a collapsed lung.
There are videos online of a new sort of armor plate stopping a .50 BMG round. You genuinely have more of a chance surviving a 50 cal to your chest if you weren't wearing that plate carrier.
Retired room temperature IQ Marine here - I retired in 1996, and I've been looking at new gear (and training) since about six months after I retired and saying, "Oh, man, I wish we'd had that . . . " often enough that I know my wife is tired of hearing it, although she's a good sport (and a good shot.)
For frame of reference, when I retired things were so different that only snipers and match competition shooters got optics; the rest of us used post-and-peep iron sights. That said, any Marine who shot Rifle Expert with any version of an M16 was consistently putting good groups into center mass on a human torso target at 500 meters (after flipping the rear sight aperture from short range to long range.)
One of my brothers was one of those match shooters. At the All Marine Corps matches in 1990, he won High Tyro in an event where he started standing at the 1,000-yard line, with an M14 with iron sights. He knew that somewhere along the line of targets - didn't know where - someone was going to pop a human silhouette target on a stick above the berm, walk along the line - he didn't know which direction they'd be going, either - and after they'd passed five targets at normal walking speed, the target would disappear back into the butts. He had to wait until he saw the target, then get prone, make any adjustments to his sights he thought he needed, and hit the target before it dropped back into the butts. He hit it more times than his competitors. His trophy was a brand new M1 Garand. Best shooter I've ever known.
Re that .277 Fury, my bet is that it stays supersonic past 1,000 meters and probably has as much energy as a .300 Win Mag, let alone a .308 or .30-06, past 500.
11:31 the ten inch clean penetration happened under nearly ideal condition.
GT stated at the outset that the clear gel was not set up to simulate flesh.
An actual human torso, especially when you include clothes, will vary in its resistance to the bullet.
Skin is strong, that is why we take it off of animals to use for things like tension drive belts in mills.
There's also bone in both the front and back.
Sig actually brought Garand Thumb out to test the M7 along with all it's attachments (the military's new scope for example). They also talk as to why they use the 277, what it means for the boots on the ground etc (a lot of the people who helped design it are/were military if I remember correctly)
I could happily watch you react to Garand Thumbs videos indefinitely. It’s like watching them all over again 😁
If you come back to Maine, the Sig Sauer HQ is in New Hampshire, just to the west of Maine, in Exeter NH.
There is a lovely building called the Sig Sauer Experience Center right at the entrance to their campus.
In the Sig Sauer Experience Center, you can try most of their guns and silencers ( I don't think they let you use the machine guns... yet. )
Its very professional. Backlit walls of cool guns (very "John Wick"). You can take them down and handle them. Helpful salespeople tell you all about them. Play with optics, play with suppressors. Then you go to the indoor range, try 'em out (for a small rental fee, of course).
If you tell them you were a marksman with the Royal Marines and have a TH-cam channel, they may even let you use the outdoor 1000 meter range. ;)
Hey Waffles! .556 was not created to wound people. It was adopted so people could carry rounds in bulk. This was due to the crappy training and lack of accuracy of the early "AR" in Vietnam. Basically, praying and spraying.
Yes, and during the Vietnam war some bean counter came up with X number of bullets fired means X number of kills. Their logic said more bullets fired means more kills.
please watch his video
The US Military's New Smart Optic that Aims For You. The XM-157
the XM-157 optic is absolutely nuts.
This!
“Who is this guy? 😂” bro that’s Charlie, you need to listen every time this guy talks because dude is a fucking comedian and quick af with shit too 😂
From what I understand the round/rifle combo is only half the magic. The other half is the new optic that does automatic range-finding, calculates drop, adjusts for air temperature and humidity, and moves the reticle for you so even average shots are getting accurate hits and good shots are taking people’s eyes out at several hundred metres. Ok, I’m exaggerating, but only a bit. It sounds like it might be the kind of jump up that early optics were over iron sights.
Don’t worry about doing the reactions, he doesn’t care.
Charlie, the guy with the glasses and the Dirty Kid shirt, is hilarious. Dirty Kid is a funny gun channel too.
The XM in the XM7 refers to it being an experimental or limited use weapon until it is standardized as a TC-STD in MIL-STD. The M17, as it is called now, was the XM17 during production, and the requisition for the new sidearm was called the XM17 Modular Handgun System program. Sig's P320 was selected as the XM17 and the XM18, and then once they entered service they became the M17 and M18. The M7, from the XM7 Next Generation Squad Weapon program, has just now reached the stage of field deployment, so it was standardized from the XM7 into the M7. The XM250 has also begun to see field deployment, so it will now be standardized as the M250. As a side note, I wish the Army had kept the NGSW program as the XM5 program. The XM5 and XM250 were going to be replacing the M4 and the M249, so it fit so much more, but Colt had a trademark on M5, so the Army decided to change it to XM7 and M7.
I am old. When I served we used the G3. Loved it. Never liked the 5.56 much, but this looks good.
Americans usually mean yards when they talk shooting.
The armor caught it but can you imagine the internal damage all of that force could have on bones and flesh. And, I have looked at the Thumb videos now that you have shown them.
Hey man you should also watch the video about the M157 scope. The whole NGSW program is about the combination of a new rifle, a violent ammunition amd the ability to accurately engage target at long range.
It'll totally blow you mind after thinking what an average soldier can acheive with a m7 and a m157 scope.
You should check how the NGSW bid from General Dynamics, now the Lonestar RM277. It's right up your alley as some one trained on a bullpup platform, and would've alleviated many of the concerns raised against the SIG M7 (chamber pressure, overall length, weight), had it been adopted.
The reasons the US military is testing and adopting the .277 fury (in a limited capacity at the moment) is due to a few factors: terminal performance, external ballistics, and advancements in optics making longer range marksmanship more common and more easy.
Terminal Ballistics: the new .277 fury round is VERY similar to the .270 Winchester ballistically, it uses a hybrid casing to oush a similarly weighted projectile at nearly the same velocity but from a shorter barrel using a shorter cartridge. Tye .270 winchester is a well known and well regarded hunting round used for animals as large as moose worldwide. It fires a 130gr bullet at roughly 3100 feet per second from the muzzle using a 24 inch barrel, the new .277 Fury fires a 113gr bullet at just over 3000 feet per second from a 13.5 inch barrel so not as much raw power but MUCH more efficient use of cartridge space and powder. The slight difference in total power is within 2-3% of each other while using a smaller cartridge and rifle than could be used with .270 Winchester. And a more aerodynamically efficent projectile than 7.62 NATO so it will perform better at longer ranges than 7.62
External ballistics: the new .277fury cartridge when loaded with a match round of some type (Open tip match, or tipped match preferably) can reach distances of 1000m with relative ease and deoending on bullet design and construction still deliver devastating performance at that range. Better ballistics coefficients and better cartridge design makes longer range shots easier.
Optics advances: the rifle is set to be paired with the new Vortex "XM177" (i think that's its designation) optic which has a ballistic calculator and laser rangefinder built into the optic, those two things make a MASSIVE difference in shooting long range and the scope literally lets you program your bullet's BC and velocity into it then uses that in conjunction with the laser rangefinder to twll you exactly where your bullet is going to land (not accounting for wind, but kestrels and other tools exist to fill in that missing puzzle piece)
In testing, using the rifle and optic paired together, basic infantrymen were able to make rapid, repeatable, and reliable hits on man-sized targets at distances of 800m with no additional marksmanship training.
Its an "Easy" button, a higher hit probability at longer ranges, and better terminal performance when the bullet gets there.
The thing about the M-7 is the US Military is also purchasing 7.62 barrels along with the .277 and the lower will accept 7.62 magazines. So in a pinch, the US will still be able to share ammo.
17:10 My dude, that's Charlie. An absolute chaotic foil to the more serious energy GT (Mike) brings. There's entire compilations of Charlie's antics.
Plus, he and Micha (GT's cameraman and editor, while also making content for his own channel) was on GunMagWarehouse's podcast, The Mag Life, in which Charlie discusses his superpower, Trolling.
17:09 He joined the team not so long ago, there is a Best of Charlie montage on TH-cam that I think you should check out. The guy is hilarious and he brings the videos to a whole new level when he is there.
I always wondered about the effectiveness of the .556 in the desert or where long distances are involved. I noted that they equipped some soldiers with M-14s shooting the 7.62 in the Middle East. I used the M-14 in boot camp and liked that rifle.
any times someone asks "what is ballistics gel" my first thought is they must not of watched Mythbusters LOL. Getting some type of Army Rep on these channels would be great and free PR for them as well as being able to reach more people that might want to join the military. That .277 round is a beast can't say i have ever seen reactions like that from "small" rifles
When I was a teenager in the early 60s I had an 03-A3 Springfield, a version of the WW1 rifle. Surplus ball ammo, 30 cal,(30-06) was available cheap. I could buy 100 rounds for $6.00. There was a dried up riverbed nearby that my brothers and I would go to for shooting. There was an old wrecked car we’d always put a couple rounds through, but the one target that really blew my mind was a steel cylinder around an old rusty pump. The steel was about 3/4 inches thick. That .30 ball ammo would penetrate that cylinder from 25 yards. Always made me wonder about those war movies where a guy would hide behind a wooden door or wall. Don’t think that was very good cover.😂
150 grains is the standard weight for 7.62, the bullet leaves the muzzle going about 2700 fps out of an 18" barrel. The 6.8x51 is about the same power, but because of the better coefficient of friction, the M-7 will have a longer range and accuracy.
Banana ballistics on TH-cam has videos comparing different rounds against targets. Worth a look.
When you have a longer bullet, you get a better coefficient of friction, which means the bullet retains velocity better, you get longer range and better accuracy. That's why the 77 Grain Open Tip Match bullets are more accurate than either flavor of 5.56: 55 grain XM-193 or 62 grain M-855 (SS109) (plus the steel penetrator is hard to keep consistent during manufacture).
The new 5.56 M-855A1 bullet is machined out of bronze with the steel penetrator dead center on the nose. Because bronze weighs less than lead, the bullet is longer to maintain the 62 grain projectile weight (better coefficient of friction, better velocity retention, better range, better accuracy) But you're getting a bullet roughly half the weight of the .227 Fury/6.8x51 bullet (110-130 grains) going slower (about 2700 fps in a 14.5" barreled M-4 versus only a 13.5" barrel in the M-7). The British and other NATO countries were all fired up to make a .280 caliber round the NATO standard until the US insisted on making 7.62x51 the standard and then 5.56 after two years of the beastly M-14, which was supreme overkill in Vietnam. They were carrying a rifle designed to make hits at 1000 yards when they could only see 50 yards ahead of them in the jungle. The only thing 7.62 had going for it was it could punch through vegetation without as much deflection, but if you're shooting through bushes, you can't see your target, so you don't know if you're making hits. Most of the US's design decisions were based on a European woodlands environment against the Russians. Now they're making decisions based on desert warfare, so obviously the next war will be in the Arctic. :)
I think he missed some of Charlie's jokes lol
Yeah, i'm with you on that 😂
Or all of them! 😂. Not a GT video without charlie
Check out the Garand Thumb video about the scope that is to be paired with the M7.
I appologize if someone has answered this with better information, but from what I am given to understand the .277 Fury is using a lighter, higher BC, 6.8 mm bullet in what is essentially a similar sized case and amount of powder as the 7.62 NATO. The military cartridge uses a hybrid case with a steel base to reduce weight and contain higher pressures than the civilian catridge. Chances are, whatever Mike is getting for results (unless he is handloading), it could be expected that military round, as issued, will have a higher muzzle velocity as it will be loaded to higher pressures than the 7.62 NATO.
5.56 out of a 20 inch barrel hits 3000 fps. .277 fury hitting that out of a 13 inch barrel is psychotic
The optic is a Nightforce Optics ATACR scope with a 50mm* or 56mm* objective lens. (*Which specific NF model, I do not know. I would need more information about the optic.)
The 5.56 is for wounding claim baffles me... It is a deadly round. In its original loading, M194 55gr FMJ, out of the 1 in 12 twist barrels in the M16A1, it was a devious ittle bullet. It was called the small bullet that makes a big hole.
It would tumble and disintegrate, and do a lot of damage.
Switching to the M885 62gr FMJ Penetrator round is what caused the problem with inconsistent lethality.
Moving to the Open Tip Match loads like the USMC MK 318 62gr OTM, and the Army's MK 262 77gr OTM really imprived terminal performance, and improved accuracy. Antidotal stories from some SF guys who have used both preferred the 62gr as being better at dropping bad guys, but the 77gr did better when shooting further out.
also have to remember the army is issuing a new optic that is equipped with its own rangefinder and Ballistic calculator that turn every competent rifleman into a marksman.
XM7 was it’s designation when in testing. M7 is it’s name upon adoption.
Small arms review has a few videos on this rifle and .277/6.8x51. The cost per round was insane
Two rounds to punch through level 4 body armor and higher accuracy at longer distances seem worth the weight trade-off. These rounds are both awesome and scary at the same time.
The round does out perform the 7.62 Nato, significantly and is more in line with the 7.62x54R. The rifle will also be getting a vortex optic (1-8x30) wihich will give incredible accuracy, basically turning each rifleman into a sharpshooter. The rifle will not completely replace the M4, which will be maintained for support troops.
Projectiles tend to penetrate further in test gels than they do in real flesh. The type of gel can afect it as well.
Guys who hunt can report that a round that reliably penetrates further than the width of their game animals, will often not exit the animal.
They are using something called Clear Ballistic Gel. It is a proprietary formulation meant to be an easier to use alternative to the official spec gel. A lot of TH-cam channels use it because it has some advantages.
Officail ballistic gel is made using essentially unflavored jello. Its industrial gelatin, but made from the same stuff. It is mixed at a specific ratio and kept at a specific temperature. It more closely mimics real flesh performance showing less penetration, but it is still not exact. You will see some amount of deeper penetration in the gel than in real world use.
Due to needing to be kept at low temps, and mixed and tested for calibration. There is a process to test calibration using a BB at a specific FPS speed... Not many guys want to deal with all that. Plus its not clear, so you cannot see what is happening, you must cut it open and examine it.
The ballistic dummies are made with something else, it is more stable than real gel, but still can melt on a hot sunny day.
The idea was to develop a round that was smaller (but larger than 5.56), lighter, faster, and more accurate than 7.62, but could deliver as much, if not more energy into the target. The bi-metal case design is needed for the ammo case to survive at the higher pressures needed to achieve the desired peak performance from the round.
Please check out the MK18 video. The MK18 is the CQB variant of the M4, which is both beloved and synonymous with special forces. The Mod 1 had a 10.3" barrel, and the more recent URGI is 11.5". The video shows off the M7's version of the MK18.
The x designation is fir experimental, and is used if and until it is adopted into service. Same with planes, ect.
Standard 5.56 load is the 62 grain M855A1 out of a 14.5 inch barrel M4 carbine and is moving about 2800 fps. The standard load for 7.62x51 is the 147 grain M80 out of a 22 inch barrel and is moving at about the same speed as the 5.56. The .277 Fury or 6.8x51 is beating both of those in velocity. That’s incredible because it has the same barrel length as the M4 carbine, but is firing a bullet with twice the mass of M855A1. 7.62x51 out of a 14.5 inch barrel actually loses a lot of velocity in comparison. I would estimate it around 2300-2400 fps. Speed beats armor and velocity is king when determining how much kinetic energy a projectile has. The 277 Fury is beating armor while still having a lethal punch afterwords.
Yes it was the XM7. Now that it has been adopted it is the M7. The X in military trials designation stands for experimental. All trials weapons are given an XM designator.
If i remember my conversions correctly,
7.62×51mm is 147 grains traveling @ 2800 ft/sec, which comes out to ~2,550 ft-lbs of energy
5.56×45mm is 62 grains @ 3100 ft/sec with ~1,325 ft-lbs.
.277 Fury they said was 113 grains @ 3061 ft/sec which conversts to approximately 2,625 ft-lbs I think.
So .277 Fury is roughly in the same ballpark as 7.62 NATO.
So a big reason for going with this new ammo is the chamber pressure. You'll get higher muzzle velocity and energy out of a 16 inch barrel with 277 fury than you would with 308 out of a 24 inch barrel. The two main complaints with 5.56 were its maximum useful range and poor terminal ballistics at that range. This change should enable basic infantry to engage and defeat threats at distance without employing auxiliary assets like a vehicle mounted 50 cal.
In the video with the short barrel version, he does have a rep from Sig with him on the video.
A fun video to watch is from Ballistic High Speed
Comparing different type of rounds shooting into water, it gives quite amazing findings. And awsome ultra high speed footage
I do feel like this rifle is gonna be a more specific role type rifle, like a DMR.
Its crazy to think, just from logistic wise, that this is gonna be standard rifle for every person in the military.
Let alone people being able to handle it, recoil wise and being accurate, and making sure every person is trained on the rifle or keeping that training at a level on par with decent performance.
Don’t skip the sponsors Charles has some great names.
What I’ve read is that the .277 fury is a reaction to the long engagement distances during the GWOT. Just as 556 was a reaction to Vietnam where engagement distances got a lot closer in the jungle. Is it a good idea? Idk, I guess we will see
It was a reaction to the increased use of body armor by china and russia. Russia might be using more cardboard then actual armor but the reason is still valid.
A reaction that resulted in a completely non-sensical cartridge. If solid-body penetration was what they were seeking, improving the sectional density, material hardness and using the hybrid case technology on existing .308 platforms would have achieved the exact same goal. Compare a 110gr .308 with close to equivalent barrel lengths and suddenly this cartridge isn't so impressive. Of course a full-power cartridge is going to out-perform an intermediate one, but when you are doing so at the expense of barrel life and weight, its not exactly a smart trade. This is just another short-stroke gas piston system, there's nothing high tech or ground breaking here - probably one of the least impressive options from the NGSW program.
There is always another war
X usually stands for "Experimental" and is dropped once the rifle is adopted.
The new shortened sig spear isn’t called the Mk18, the Mk18 is a 10.3 inch barreled variant of the M4 carbine. He’s saying “is this the US military’s new mk18” because it’s a similar concept, a shorter version of the standard service rifle. The shortened sig Spear is called the Spear Assaulter K, formerly the Raptor (which I think is a better name but whatever). Also, as he said, ballistic gel is NOT a 1 to 1. So 10 inches of penetration in ballistic gel is not equivalent to 10 inches of penetration in human tissue. SIG has done a lot with Garand Thumb, and while they did develop the cartridge, they will not be making the military ammo. The military has their own ammunition plant, and I don’t believe they have released the information on performance of the military issue 6.8 round
But we have a f22 raptor already. Should be renamed to m7s or m7c
@@eastonnida8213the US military doesn’t designate rifles like that my guy. Never have. And Raptor isn’t a military name. It’s the name given to it by SIG. people seem to misunderstand that. The rifle is the SIG spear, the military designation for the SIG spear is the M7.
As for the weight of the riffle and ammo, the US Army has been field testing non-powered load bearing exoskeletons. My guess is they'll be standard issue in 3 to 5 years.
Another note, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re carrying 50% less ammo. The basic combat load for the M110A1, which is a 7.62 rifle, is 5 magazines, or 100 rounds. The .277 is a similar weight, and the weight of 5 loaded 7.62 or .277 magazines is the same as the weight of 7 5.56 magazines, or 210 rounds
Great video! You need to review the new army optic that’s going on all these rifles. Garand Thumb has an exclusive video using the Vortex XM-157 optic. It’s crazy! Makes Call of duty become reality on the battlefield. All the best from the USA
M7 is one more try at the One Rifle to Rule Them All. They were having problems with range in Afghanistan, but they also had a lot of urban fighting in Iraq. So this is their attempt at having a round that's good at both.
What I usually do, is that I watch the videos of ''Garand thumb'' and then a few days later you post yours, and to know your opinion I also watch yours, so I don't think you're stealing views, I see you more as a complement that adds value for your expirienced commentary.
"X" prefix is "Experimental.' The "XM" is basically an indicator that it is a trials rifle. Now that the "X" has been dropped, indicates that it has been approved and is is a combat approved rifle. We do the same with new aircraft. "YF-22 Raptor" (prototype), having passed trials and been the chosen aircraft from the "Advanced Tactical Fighter" program, became the "F-22 Raptor," There are different prefixes depending on development status. For example, "XB-70" is an aircraft in the experimental stage of development. The XB-70 Valkyrie (a mach-3 delta wing bomber) program was cancelled. Similar things occur with other defense systems and weapons (rifles, ammo, missiles, explosives, ships, helicopters, etc) being developed for future military use.
"XM" means it's still being field tested ("Experimental"), when it becomes general issue, it loses the "X". The US military still issues the 55 grain fmj XM-193 round because of the large number of old M-16's and M-16A2's still in service while the general issue rounds are the M-855 and M-855A1 designed for the M-16A2, M-4, and variants of both. (The M-16A2 and M-4 have a different rifling pitch designed for the heavier and longer M-855 and M-855A1 rounds).
"Mk" is usually a Navy or Marine prefix while GAU is usually an Air Force prefix. They redesignated it the M-7 because field trials showed a few problems which they fixed. I'm sure there are videos or documents with details, I don't know, but I do know the M-250 was correct out of the box, with no tweaks needed. Sig wants to install a folding stock adapter, but it would make the M-250 longer than the design specs when unfolded.
7.62 travels 2,670 fps with 22" barrel. This new ammo being over 3,000 fps so there is that. Also the .277 Fury generates 80,000 PSI, 5.56 is 60,000 and 7.62 is 62,000
I think you make a good point about price. Because the 5.56 has been in use for so long, not to mention that it is the standard NATO round, we have the advantage of economies of scale to source it. So now we have a round that is only used by the U.S. Army and how many manufacturers are there? Logistically, I see this as a problem.
5.56isnt going away. Most troops will still get an M16 or M4, but any front line troops are supposed to get this new rifle.
Also, this new round is set to replace 7.62 as well. There is also a medium machine gun coming that is using this round. The new MG is actually really nice. Much lighter in weight.
This round is a 6.8 caliber BTW.