[Lexie__M]

The military isn't concerned about reloading. The lower pressure 277 Fury is reloadable.

This is detail of 6.8x51 hybird with steel bottom to handle the extra pressure whereas brass cannot.

I have a question, how long will a barrel last with this extra power?

 

[CybrSlydr]

Looks like Garand Thumb got his hands on some stuff.

 

[MoRivera]

Ah...beat me by a half-hour in posting....

Note that the's not firing the actual military round. Bi-metal casing still, but apparently a little less hot.

 

[CybrSlydr]

Ah...beat me by a half-hour in posting....

Note that the's not firing the actual military round. Bi-metal casing still, but apparently a little less hot.

Bingo - very interested to see if that soft recoil impulse on full auto remains when he's firing the 10mm version, not the .40 S&W.

Doesn't have the Vortex optic either - but that's no real surprise. That sucker is going to add a ton of weight to this weapon as well.

 

[MoRivera]

Bingo - very interested to see if that soft recoil impulse on full auto remains when he's firing the 10mm version, not the .40 S&W.

Doesn't have the Vortex optic either - but that's no real surprise. That sucker is going to add a ton of weight to this weapon as well.

Plus he shoots a lot, so he's probably better at controlling that rifle at speed than any GI's out there. That's the biggest concern that a friend who was army expressed, that qualification standards will have to go down if the rifle is issued, especially for female soldiers.

His overall outlook is pretty similar to a lot, in that it's an excellent weapon but not necessarily an ideal system as an overall replacement to the M4. At least not universally. Obviously things are going to take a while and there many be modifications, but still just to handle that round it's going to need some physical size. And then again ,that suppressor and optic.

 

[CybrSlydr]

Plus he shoots a lot, so he's probably better at controlling that rifle at speed than any GI's out there. That's the biggest concern that a friend who was army expressed, that qualification standards will have to go down if the rifle is issued, especially for female soldiers.

His overall outlook is pretty similar to a lot, in that it's an excellent weapon but not necessarily an ideal system as an overall replacement to the M4. At least not universally. Obviously things are going to take a while and there many be modifications, but still just to handle that round it's going to need some physical size. And then again ,that suppressor and optic.

I don't think qual standards will have to go down.

Whereas commanders could previously dictate whether or not their soldiers could shoot “slick” without their body armor and helmet, the new rifle qualification requires soldiers to wear them. Magazines are retained on the soldier’s gear rather than laying ready on the ground or on a sandbag in order to more closely simulate a combat situation. The first shot of the qualification will be on a close-range target from the standing unsupported firing position. From there, soldiers will transition into the prone unsupported firing position and engage the next nine targets through a port in the bottom of the barricade. The last 30 targets will appear in three waves of 10 with soldiers conducting magazine and firing position changes on their own in between.

So the only round you're firing unsupported is the first round, prone unsupported is still not too difficult. Then the majority of them are prone supported. I don't see where the qual standards of 29/40 will need changed. It's not like they'll be firing a .50BMG from the shoulder - this is still a rifle cartridge, not an anti-material one. Besides, if DS do their jobs (like they did when I went through), then folks will have the knowledge on how to properly and safely engage the targets with this weapon. Just might take a little more training on the range before they have to qual.

Besides, this may get DS to push more paper to get these non-hackers discharged - if they can't shoot, they shouldn't graduate.

 

[Scooter715]

Why do qualification standards need to go down? Why can’t training time and standards go up? The entire raison d’etre of a military combat unit is to put ordnance on target. Anything that takes away from that is rubbish. Raise the standards, issue the new rifles to people who can hack it, thereby motivating soldiers and Marines to be better. Can’t shoot, you get a run out M4. The M5 is for those who can put it to good use.

It’s hard to accept that the rifle is “too heavy”, considering that skinny, dysentery ridden kids carried Garands and BAR’s across the Pacific jungles and from France to Germany in WWII.

Isn’t it past time to push for tougher, stronger, better war fighters? Why does it always have to be “it’s too heavy, it recoils too much, it’s too hard…”?

 

[MoRivera]

Why do qualification standards need to go down? Why can’t training time and standards go up? The entire raison d’etre of a military combat unit is to put ordnance on target. Anything that takes away from that is rubbish. Raise the standards, issue the new rifles to people who can hack it, thereby motivating soldiers and Marines to be better. Can’t shoot, you get a run out M4. The M5 is for those who can put it to good use.

It’s hard to accept that the rifle is “too heavy”, considering that skinny, dysentery ridden kids carried Garands and BAR’s across the Pacific jungles and from France to Germany in WWII.

Isn’t it past time to push for tougher, stronger, better war fighters? Why does it always have to be “it’s too heavy, it recoils too much, it’s too hard…”?

Because it's going to be a harder gun to control and tote around with less ammo, especially for female shooters. At least that's his opinion on it. That new optic may help. Raise the standard of soldiers...sure, why not? But can it be done? I don't know how they've been able to gauge that, but has there been any reliable way of judging the quality of recruiting/soldiers over the years? Some of the new recruiting ads make me wonder a bit. And/or do they need to step things up in the current training, and if so why haven't they already?

 

[JohnDoe122931]

Bingo - very interested to see if that soft recoil impulse on full auto remains when he's firing the 10mm version, not the .40 S&W.

Doesn't have the Vortex optic either - but that's no real surprise. That sucker is going to add a ton of weight to this weapon as well.

No, the Vortex Optic will NOT add a ton of weight. They are rather light and from what Vortex has said it is actually lighter than some of their other optics that are currently on the market.

 

[JohnDoe122931]

Because it's going to be a harder gun to control and tote around with less ammo, especially for female shooters. At least that's his opinion on it. That new optic may help. Raise the standard of soldiers...sure, why not? But can it be done? I don't know how they've been able to gauge that, but has there been any reliable way of judging the quality of recruiting/soldiers over the years? Some of the new recruiting ads make me wonder a bit. And/or do they need to step things up in the current training, and if so why haven't they already?

Why is it that we are constantly having to lower our standards and firearm selection for females and weak men? Females make up a very small percentage of the military and if we are going to continue to lower our standards because females and weak men are serving then we need to really start making some hard choices. Same with the FBI and their selection of the 10mm. The 10mm is a wonderful cartridge that can be adapted to so many situations yet, one of the problems with the FBI not adopting it was because of females and weak men who couldn't handle it. Instead of trying to lower our standards, we need to start raising our standards and stop just accepting every Joe and Jane off the streets and giving them a uniform because they signed a contract. If they can't do the job then don't apply and that doesn't mean lower standards just to get applicants. I would much rather take 100 highly armed and highly trained soldiers than 200 moderately armed and trained soldiers.

and if so why haven't they already?

Because of this nonsense "woke" culture we are turning to. There was a saying I once heard, I believe it was from Roy Boehm, First Navy SEAL. He said there was once a time when the navy had wooden ships and iron men, now it has iron ships and wooden men. We have continued down this road of weaking our military and our country as a whole, you can spectulate on the reason, but point being is that it is not helping any of us and will be a big problem later down the road and not much later.

 

[ras47]

For knockdown power the Russians got it right with the 7.62 x 39. This picture makes a good basis for comparison. Similar length, far fatter case for the Russian round. And a whole lot more lead traveling through the air.

 

[MoRivera]

No, the Vortex Optic will NOT add a ton of weight. They are rather light and from what Vortex has said it is actually lighter than some of their other optics that are currently on the market.

It'll weigh more than an ACOG, an Aimpoint or an Eotch, and then there's the suppressor which they'll probably want on all the time given an 80,000psi round being fired from a 13" barrel on a rifle that's heavier than an M4. No matter what, you're looking at a substantially heavier and bulkier rifle/loadout with less ammo than the MN4/M16. Maybe they can make up for that with a more streamlined overalll loadout outside of the main weapon. Or maybe it will end up being more mission specific while the M4's remain more general issue.

Why is it that we are constantly having to lower our standards and firearm selection for females and weak men? Females make up a very small percentage of the military and if we are going to continue to lower our standards because females and weak men are serving then we need to really start making some hard choices. Same with the FBI and their selection of the 10mm. The 10mm is a wonderful cartridge that can be adapted to so many situations yet, one of the problems with the FBI not adopting it was because of females and weak men who couldn't handle it. Instead of trying to lower our standards, we need to start raising our standards and stop just accepting every Joe and Jane off the streets and giving them a uniform because they signed a contract. If they can't do the job then don't apply and that doesn't mean lower standards just to get applicants. I would much rather take 100 highly armed and highly trained soldiers than 200 moderately armed and trained soldiers.


Because of this nonsense "woke" culture we are turning to. There was a saying I once heard, I believe it was from Roy Boehm, First Navy SEAL. He said there was once a time when the navy had wooden ships and iron men, now it has iron ships and wooden men. We have continued down this road of weaking our military and our country as a whole, you can spectulate on the reason, but point being is that it is not helping any of us and will be a big problem later down the road and not much later.

See maybe this was one of the main motivating factors in choosing a heavier recoiling and carrying main weapon, to actually counter the new 'progressive' future of our military and force them to man-up.

Or maybe we could just keep the weapons we have and improve our training and standards so that they're tougher soldiers who can take even better advantage of more streamlined load outs. But perhaps that's too radical. I mean heck, next they'll be asking for better-trained police....imagine that.

So if you asked my army friend why he thinks they'll lower the standards, he'd probably tell you, 'Because it's what they do.' And if they were going to raise the standards then they probably would have already, new rifle or no new rifle.

 

[ibourque154]

So I just watched Garands video on it and I have to agree that this rifle could greatly benefit SOME units and situations but completely replacing the M4 is not the way to go. If this rifle/caliber was adopted during the height of Afghanastan, it would make sense. There was a lot of long range open combat which needed a stronger round / better optics. On the other hand, there was also alot of close range combat where the M4 put in work. As AD USAF I really hope we never transition to it as my main threat is an active shooter and the M4 is perfect for that sort of threat. The Army should have considered adopting the Sig as an optioned rifle / or maybe specialty in a squad / mission specific weapon but is wrong to completely replace the M4.