what a cool case to wildcat. I wonder what it will do and 35 caliber?

quote:

Originally posted by Nordic2:
New Sig-Sauer Cross bolt action hunting rifle will come in .277 Sig Fury Hybrid round.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...g/2019/12/18/972500/

http://soldiersystems.net/2019...-cross-277-sig-fury/

Probably no/few pressure tell signs on a reloaded steel-brass case. 3000f/s bullet may be 140 grains?? just close or a little more than .270win. As a 35 a 35 whelen on a short action.

quote:

Originally posted by Nordic2:
Probably no/few pressure tell signs on a reloaded steel-brass case. 3000f/s bullet may be 140 grains?? just close or a little more than .270win. As a 35 a 35 whelen on a short action.

My thoughts exactly
06 case performance in a smaller package I hope. I wonder if you can just do a kind of ++P load in a 358 Win gun if your rifle could handle the extra pressure. That could be dangerous. Murphy and Darwin might intervene. Perhaps A modified version that would not chamber in a normal chamber.

It may be worth waiting to see which cartridge win the military competition as this Sig round would have problem to reach the specification then Sig-Sauer choosed to use .473 boltface and existing rifle technology.

Someone is making money out of this utterly unnecessary change.

Not one single advantage at all.

"SIG also confirmed the .277 Fury is currently identical to the 6.8x51mm round they are submitting to the US Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon program."


https://www.thefirearmblog.com...ig-sauers-range-day/

Or you could just be smart and ask a cartridge company to develop you a 7.62x51 NATO round using CFE 223 and a 173/175 grain bullet at 2700 fps and save a bunch a money.

they are trying to find something that will kill an elephant but a 90lb little girl can shoot with 3 minutes of training.

The Textron offer on Shot show.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...w-r-at-the-hk-booth/

US Marines will get their first NGSW in 2025 replacing M27.

https://www.marines.mil/News/N...n-effort-in-decades/

US army will buy NGSW from 2021.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...procurement-numbers/

We have to consider the evolution of warfare from throwing/stabbing weapons to digitally controlled combat.

The 1911A1 was not replaced by the 9MM. Handguns were replaced by superior battle rifles. Except for specialized units, may of which use the 1911A1, it makes more sense to carry extra 30 round mags for a battle rifle than a handgun.

Billy Mitchell proved that air power made the battleship obsolete. The USS Wisconsin, the last battleship we built, was obsolete before it hit water. All military hardware destroyed at Pearl Harbor was obsolete. The then future of the US Navy was aircraft carrier battle groups. My guess is that fighter aircraft is already obsolete. We can destroy an enemy's entire air force before it gets a single plane airborne. If an enemy is successful in getting an aircraft airborne, a missile fired hundreds of miles away will destroy it before it were to hit full throttle. But there's big money to be transferred from US taxpayers to the military-industrial complex. That's why the CIA continues to create enemies as justification to fight false flag wars that make a lot of people very rich, not one of whom shed a tear for fallen US soldiers who've died for nothing relating to the safety and security of the USA.

Our military has to match weaponry to threat. It seems as though "no man's land" ended with WWI. "Island hopping" ended with WWII. Urban combat seems to be controlling in our era. We don't need to engage enemy soldiers at great distances. Missiles and drones can vanquish that threat. There really is no reason to conduct urban warfare (door-to-door) if our military can quarantine a city. Nothing in, nothing out, no food, no utilities, no medicine (except for children) until threats decide to surrender. I'd wait 'em out for years before I'd risk a single American soldier's life in urban combat.

If I were a foot soldier in the US Military, I'd want an H&K 416 A5 with an 11" barrel and as many mags as I could carry. I would not carry a handgun unless I were assigned to a designated tasked detail, and that handgun would be a Springfield Armory TRP .45 ACP (the same handgun Chris Kyle carried).

BTW, the H&K 416 has endured a torture test that no bolt action rifle or revolver could have come close to passing. The H&K 416 action might just be the most reliable action on Earth. And it's extremely accurate.

The point is the evolution of warfare has forced a radical change of battle tactics and hardware used to fight wars. What would be the reason for a pilot to dogfight an enemy when a missile fired hundreds of miles away would destroy the enemy's fighter without risk to our pilots?

If you were to study military history, the First Battle of the Somme is shocking: https://www.britannica.com/eve...-Battle-of-the-Somme

The horrendous loss of life was due to antiquated and stupid tactics against then modern weaponry in a war that was planned by Satanic minds, a war that should've never been fought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqvALkpsfRo

quote:

My guess is that fighter aircraft is already obsolete. We can destroy an enemy's entire air force before it gets a single plane airborne. If an enemy is successful in getting an aircraft airborne, a missile fired hundreds of miles away will destroy it before it were to hit full throttle.

Yes fighter aircraft may become obsolete for the final part of the mission, only missiles/drones will go in to contested airspace. Missiles launched on flying fighter aircrafts at 100s miles away have a low hit rate.

The smuzzle sound suppressor / muzzlebreak.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...-suppressor-smuzzle/

quote:

The USS Wisconsin, the last battleship we built, was obsolete before it hit water.

I'd actually in 2020 now strongly dispute that. Weapons technology is such with ship to ship missiles regardless of the size of the ship you are firing at you will hit it.

Therefore a big battleship has the advantage that it has better survivability. It has that not only from its armour but that at the same time it can carry more defensive weapons.

Interesting discussion; two points; the Mission of the US Army is not to kill anyone and neither is the mission of the US Infantry Branch. (Interestingly enough, the Australian Infantry does have a stated mission to kill the enemy.)
Our mission is only to make the enemy do what we want and if he chooses to do that voluntarily, the more the better. Killing or even wounding is not the mission. Of course, if the enemy does not cooperate, they might get hurt but that is not the goal. So much for the discussion of killing vs wounding. Read Sun Szu; he said the same thing.
As for the misguided liberal notion that somehow, that one of the Army's missions is to magically transfer taxpayer money to the "military industrial complex", that is complete and utter nonsense. We procure what we need to maintain and deploy a capable Army; we do not award contracts for no reason. Can't speak about the other Services, but the Army does not have money to waste.
There are many self made "experts" in the small arms area, which is often detrimental to common sense, at times. Which is why I was in Armor (tanks), in every capacity from Tank Company to the Army procurement and logistics level. Small arms people are scary; this 6.8 thing may or may not be a good idea.

"

quote:

I'd actually in 2020 now strongly dispute that. Weapons technology is such with ship to ship missiles regardless of the size of the ship you are firing at you will hit it.Therefore a big battleship has the advantage that it has better survivability. It has that not only from its armour but that at the same time it can carry more defensive weapons.

"

Battleships have a lot of expensive technologi you just need to take out some of the expensive systems to make unaffordable to repair. As Britains two new aircraft carriers which UK never will have enough supporting ships to carry out missions away from the British islands without leaving them unprotected.

The Sig-Sauer MCX Spear NGSW coming to the civilian market in 12-18 months.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...cx-spear-ngsw-rifle/

You guys crack me up....

Manned flight is obsolete. Aircraft technology has far surpassed the human body's ability to deal with the g-forces possible in modern flight. Remove the need to built in human survivability, and life support systems and you save weight and cost not to mention the life of a highly trained human being. Remotely piloted vehicles are the future and anyone who denies that is a fool.

The Army is looking for caseless ammunition technology for its new series of guns. Not a stupid .243 Win or .308 or anything else. Weight savings is why....and probably eventually cost. Copper and lead that make brass are expensive and heavy. The loads that our combat soldiers carry now including body armor etc have degraded their mobility. Rifles and Squad Automatic Weapons don't need 1,000 yard capabilities. You can bemoan this but its like complaining why pilots are becoming obsolete.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

The USS Wisconsin, the last battleship we built, was obsolete before it hit water.

Therefore a big battleship has the advantage that it has better survivability. It has that not only from its armour but that at the same time it can carry more defensive weapons.

A single modern ADCAP torpedo will find the bottom of a ship and detonate underneath it and break its back and can do it at a range of 35,000 yards (about 20 miles away!) No battleship ever made would survive such an attack...there is no armor on the bottom of a battleship...any competent Navy with decent submarines understands this...

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

That said the 5.56x45 and it’s rifles are too large for 80% of military users and too small for maybe 3%.

Too large for 80% of military users? A lot smaller and lighter than the M1 Garand - and people where smaller in WWII vs now. I guess they were tougher. Ditto goes for the M14.

Now, you want a big, heavy rifle, a G3.

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
This is stupid on their part. You can’t fit a long enough bullet in that caliber to have a good BC and still fit it in an intermediate rifle. 6 or 6.5 is more appropriate.

Why should things change now? IMHO The only American military adoption of an appropriate cartridge was the 50 BMG. roger

Which was a scaled-up 30-06 (which was a warmed-over 8x57 mm).

True velocity says their 6,8mm cartridge can be used in legacy systems as m240b with a switch barrel.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...c-advantages-beyond/

And if we would of just adopted the 276 Pederson with a detachable mag.

Back in the 30's.

Impossible it was not american, now 90y later then US has a similar idea it fits better.