Jeffeosso:

The Barnes TSX will not satisfy the current ICRC rules on what is permissible in Warfare.
Though the USA is not a signatory they still adhere to the rules.

quote:

Originally posted by vzerone:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
With all of this pontification has anyone actually bothered to find out what the military's requirements are for the next cartridge ?

With all of this I would put money on it that somewhere in that requirement lies a personal armour defeating capability ?..... then something that stretches the effective range of deployment ( beyond the current 300 to 400 m of the 5.56 ) and then last but not least the smallest package capable of achieving the above...

Here you go:

https://www.nationaldefensemag...er-for-ground-troops

Thanks for the links. As I said, the military knows what it wants.

What everyone is saying is that there are modern, mainstream cartridges that meet the stated desire of the military without the excessive pressure or expense of the new SIG round, such as a .277/7mm on an improved 308case or the 270WSM.


There are cartridges today that meet the .277 caliber, 140grain at 3000 fps mark at 62k PSI. The 270 Win will but the case is not optimal for machine guns. A 277/308 will almost get there, and the 270 WM will get there.

Just like the new Space Force which is not new just carved away a section of the Airforce. Everyone has to be new. The situation from my reading seems to me of too much MacNamara and super weapons, but those things were before my time.

I like the ballistics just not the execution. I guess I would have been in the no lever actions military thought in the late 19th Century. So, I am most likely wrong.

It has been a fun discussion. I wonder if we had a President as invested as President Theadore Roosevelt was how our small arms would be coming out of WWII.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
What everyone is saying is that there are modern, mainstream cartridges that meet the stated desire of the military without the excessive pressure or expense of the new SIG round, such as a .277/7mm on an improved 308case or the 270WSM.


There are cartridges today that meet the .277 caliber, 140grain at 3000 fps mark at 62k PSI. The 270 Win will but the case is not optimal for machine guns. A 277/308 will almost get there, and the 270 WM will get there.

Just like the new Space Force which is not new just carved away a section of the Airforce. Everyone has to be new. The situation from my reading seems to me of too much MacNamara and super weapons, but those things were before my time.

I like the ballistics just not the execution. I guess I would have been in the no lever actions military thought in the late 19th Century. So, I am most likely wrong.

It has been a fun discussion. I wonder if we had a President as invested as President Theadore Roosevelt was how our small arms would be coming out of WWII.

You know they aren't going to put this on any M16 platform. They are wanting a new rifle. If it's going to be AR'ish I'd say AR10. Right now you could take a 7mm-08, make the case of ss steel, and up the pressure. This brings up how we got to this 16 inch barrel bullshit. To hard getting in and out of any type ground or air. More maneuverable in close quarter. So what did they do? Chopped down the 20 inch barrel on the M16. What did they expect from the bullet then at over 400 yards? They are nuts. These short barreled M4's is why they have been dicking around with way too many new bullets for the 5.56. You know you can't have a good performing aircraft carrier with an outboard motor on it. The 5.56 can only do so much.

Yeah, the Garand should have never been, the US should have stuck with bolt action repeaters. Just like the rest of the losers did.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Jeffeosso:

The Barnes TSX will not satisfy the current ICRC rules on what is permissible in Warfare.
Though the USA is not a signatory they still adhere to the rules.

jesus, doc, can't you read 130 barnes tsx "solid"

I am well aware that expanding bullets are "illegal" ... and took that into account...

I realize you are a doctor .. i get it .. i'll have my phd in about 3.5 year, too ... WHO CARES?? being an expert in one field means jack diddly in another

but, of course, the critical reader will see that i have taken these into consideration, rather than ignoring them

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
Yeah, the Garand should have never been, the US should have stuck with bolt action repeaters. Just like the rest of the losers did.

Actually the losers didn't. Germany field quite a few semi-automatics, some capable of full auto fire.

If we didn't have all those warehouses full of 30-06 ammo, machine set up to make such ammo, and a war coming on....might have been a pretty neat Garand in 276 Petersen!

Gewehr 43 WWII production 400,000 +/-.

M1 Garand WWII production 4,000,000 +/-.

I guess you could call 400,000 quite a few.

Can someone find the thread where the OP found a box of screw on steel case heads for H&H based magnums? Pretty sure Atkinson posted up some info on their date of manufacture...

Now that SIG has played their NGSW cartridge hand into the commercial market how long till GD, Textron or Olin do the same?

quote:

Originally posted by GBE:
Can someone find the thread where the OP found a box of screw on steel case heads for H&H based magnums? Pretty sure Atkinson posted up some info on their date of manufacture...

Now that SIG has played their NGSW cartridge hand into the commercial market how long till GD, Textron or Olin do the same?

This might be the thread you are looking for.
http://forums.accuratereloadin...931036152#8931036152

Thanks, that’s the thread

Steel ‘06 case head hybrid cartridge from many decades ago.

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
Gewehr 43 WWII production 400,000 +/-.

M1 Garand WWII production 4,000,000 +/-.

I guess you could call 400,000 quite a few.

Why don't you just spit your point out. The U.S. out produced the Germans in every area. Remember the Germans saying the U.S. could produce tanks faster then they could destroy them.

Do you have a burr under your saddle instead of talking about the 277 Sig like everyone else is doing???

....but just for you Germany's semi-auto/full auto total to almost one million. Yes pale to the U.S's, but they did have them. So did all the other players in WWII. The Russian made over 1,600,000 SVT-40 and SVT-38 during the war.

My point has been made. You helped me make it.

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
My point has been made. You helped me make it.

..

...AND just what does that have to do with the subject of this thread the 277 Sig??????????????

the gun in the Abrams is running right at 80K
.
With newer steels, and other materials including newer barrel coatings/embedded treatments-
80k is not that absurd.

the steel head for pressure , the brass for chamber grip, all quite doable

the military in general doesn't truly care if barrel like is shortened by 50%, though it is doubtful that it will be
probably more like 20%

really think one of the other candidates has the inside track,
think Sig is going after the commercial side with this "early release" as a backstop

Kind of like right before WW II, they wanted to go to a different round, and decided against it due to cost, and availability.

Making stampings of brass is reasonably easily done.

Note that when the war on terror started, we had massive shortages of small arms ammo on the civilian side as they wholeheartedly went in on making rounds for the military.

Some newer technology- whether caseless ammo or this bimetallic set up will be much more specialized and harder to make- and if/when we get into a shooting war, there will be no available productivity that can be rapidly switched over.

From a strategic point of view this should be a nonstarter.

I’m not sure the marginal value of a 3000 FPS round over a 2700 FPS. I also don’t know the advantage of a 14-16 in barrel over a standard one in a GPMG, which is what the call for proposals was about.

A sharper shoulder was ruled out in the old days regarding feeding in a full auto weapon. Will this be as reliable as the current set up in field conditions?

Similarly, a 140 at 3000 is going to recoil substantially more than a 55 at 2800 for a short barreled assault rifle. Of course, in a GPMG, it’s kind of a nonissue, although around 40% more muzzle pressure is going to cause issues with not only noise for folks around it, but likely equipment (like vehicles) as well.

Big green probably is playing games with wanting a new toy, but once reality set in they will back off, I suspect.

The biggest reason to go to something like this is to create an incompatibility between the current civilian small arms and what the military is using. Is that a positive? Who knows. I see good and bad in it.

Again, if the army is interested in just seeing what is feasible, this makes sense... but not as a replacement for the main small arms systems.

quote:

Originally posted by vzerone:

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
My point has been made. You helped me make it.

..

...AND just what does that have to do with the subject of this thread the 277 Sig??????????????

It went over your head, as I figured it would.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
the gun in the Abrams is running right at 80K
.
With newer steels, and other materials including newer barrel coatings/embedded treatments-
80k is not that absurd.

the steel head for pressure , the brass for chamber grip, all quite doable

the military in general doesn't truly care if barrel like is shortened by 50%, though it is doubtful that it will be
probably more like 20%

really think one of the other candidates has the inside track,
think Sig is going after the commercial side with this "early release" as a backstop

If you're talking about the 105 M68 cannon developed by Royal Ordnance in the UK I thought the pressure was 25,602.02. This is the one with the rifled barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by vzerone:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
the gun in the Abrams is running right at 80K
.
With newer steels, and other materials including newer barrel coatings/embedded treatments-
80k is not that absurd.

the steel head for pressure , the brass for chamber grip, all quite doable

the military in general doesn't truly care if barrel like is shortened by 50%, though it is doubtful that it will be
probably more like 20%

really think one of the other candidates has the inside track,
think Sig is going after the commercial side with this "early release" as a backstop

If you're talking about the 105 M68 cannon developed by Royal Ordnance in the UK I thought the pressure was 25,602.02. This is the one with the rifled barrel.

Looking at the 120mm smoothbore it's more close to what you said:

Peak Chamber Pressure: 73,950 psi at 70°F (5,100 bars at 21°C)
Nominal Velocity: 5,510 ft/sec (1,679 m/s)

quote:

Originally posted by vzerone:

quote:

Originally posted by vzerone:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
the gun in the Abrams is running right at 80K
.
With newer steels, and other materials including newer barrel coatings/embedded treatments-
80k is not that absurd.

the steel head for pressure , the brass for chamber grip, all quite doable

the military in general doesn't truly care if barrel like is shortened by 50%, though it is doubtful that it will be
probably more like 20%

really think one of the other candidates has the inside track,
think Sig is going after the commercial side with this "early release" as a backstop

If you're talking about the 105 M68 cannon developed by Royal Ordnance in the UK I thought the pressure was 25,602.02. This is the one with the rifled barrel.

Looking at the 120mm smoothbore it's more close to what you said:

Peak Chamber Pressure: 73,950 psi at 70°F (5,100 bars at 21°C)
Nominal Velocity: 5,510 ft/sec (1,679 m/s)

" AND... Just what does that have to do with the subject of this thread, the .277 Sig ????????? "

Your words, not mine.

vzerone
one of us

posted 27 December 2019 06:03 Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by vzerone:

quote:
Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
the gun in the Abrams is running right at 80K
.
With newer steels, and other materials including newer barrel coatings/embedded treatments-
80k is not that absurd.

the steel head for pressure , the brass for chamber grip, all quite doable

the military in general doesn't truly care if barrel like is shortened by 50%, though it is doubtful that it will be
probably more like 20%

really think one of the other candidates has the inside track,
think Sig is going after the commercial side with this "early release" as a backstop



If you're talking about the 105 M68 cannon developed by Royal Ordnance in the UK I thought the pressure was 25,602.02. This is the one with the rifled barrel.



Looking at the 120mm smoothbore it's more close to what you said:

Peak Chamber Pressure: 73,950 psi at 70°F (5,100 bars at 21°C)
Nominal Velocity: 5,510 ft/sec (1,679 m/s)

Posts: 254 | Registered: 15 May 2018 Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Ignored post by craigster posted 27 December 2019 08:00 Show Post
Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2


Reply

I'm devastated...

"really think one of the other candidates has the inside track, think Sig is going after the commercial side with this "early release" as a backstop "

Yes this was my first thought too.