6.8x51/.277 Fury?

[robin banks]

That number would only outfit just one brigade

I'm going to ask also, what is your resume here to openly criticize? You don't have to like the person in that video ( I sure do not), but his message is sound and choice of mission kit is training how he would fight.

I actually like the guy but he is being paid.
does 30 trillion in debt mean anything to you "conservatives"? does more then half the world being sanctioned and bombed by the US getting together to dump the dollar mean anything to you? does China Japan and the Saudis starting to dump US debt mean US should keep spending and printing?

 

[The_Quartermaster]

I actually like the guy but he is being paid.
does 30 trillion in debt mean anything to you "conservatives"? does more then half the world being sanctioned and bombed by the US getting together to dump the dollar mean anything to you? does China Japan and the Saudis starting to dump US debt mean US should keep spending and printing?

Oh, I see. You are using fallacy based arguments when you came in attacking his choice of kit. Good irrelevancy here, highly quixotic choices to try a thread slide with and not the purpose of this thread or why I posted that video to help educate the OP.

You won't be fed anymore. Good day.

 

[C-grunt]

one night I stayed in motel 6

Gotcha, so you have no idea what you are talking about.

No one with actual combat experience really describes the Taliban or AQI as "goat herders". We'll talk sh*t for sure, but we know both organizations have fought hard over the last two decades.

 

[Robert]

I actually like the guy but he is being paid.
does 30 trillion in debt mean anything to you "conservatives"? does more then half the world being sanctioned and bombed by the US getting together to dump the dollar mean anything to you? does China Japan and the Saudis starting to dump US debt mean US should keep spending and printing?

None of that has anything to do with this thread, and is off topic for THR.

Of course he is being paid, no one said he wasn't. But I don't think SIG is paying him to fawn over a rifle that is next to impossible to get on the civilian market. I mean unless you have a spare $7G laying around. I don't. He has access to kit most of us would love to have. Some is his, some he is given to try out and report back. How is that any different than any other YouTube personality. All of them are paid by someone. All of them are given stuff to test. What's your point?

 

[CapnMac]

who declared war on Houston?

Other "houstonians" like as not, as a guess.
It's a place that is large enough to make a person feel trapped by both circumstances and traffic. There's between 7 and 9 million people (depending on who you count and how you measure) in the metro Houston area, which spans 7 Counties. I'm more than passing familiar with how easily the place can make you feel isolated and alone, and "behind enemy lines" at every turn.
This may well illustrate the "why" of the assertion

Katy to La Port is 50 miles, right at 60 KM--or six times the range of the XM250.

It's a boggy, bayou-riddled sort of AO, a miserable place that could trap a foolhardy General between a river and a swamp to be routed ignominiously.

A long drive from too much of the place to get to a place to properly wring out a box of either .277 or the 6.8x51. (There used to be a pretty nice range out in Alvin though.)

 

[FL-NC]

look at all the garbage the guy has on that rifle the second video down. the goal is to outfit each grunt with 180K worth of gear. the disregard for money by the govt is sickening along with 30 trillion in debt

Do you realize that if your thought process was universal, our service members would still be fighting wars with melee weapons and hurling objects at one another? That "garbage" on that weapon enables the user to rapidly and accurately engage threats at varying distances, in any light conditions (which is a legitimate concern based on the fact that most of the planet is cloaked in darkness about 50% of the time). Have you ever tried to see in the dark without some type of light source or image enhancing capability? We (humans) just can't do it. NV capability is even built into the trail cams hunters use to surveil wild game (or the lack thereof)during hours of darkness and also in all all modern security cameras. Not to mention the fact that this same "garbage" also helps the shooter identify who should NOT be shot, with the suppressor allowing the user to minimize his signature on the battlefield (where you want to try to avoid attention from the enemy whenever possible). So all of the "garbage" enhances the user's survivability and lethality, with the added benefit of preventing fratricide and collateral damage. I have used versions of everything on that rifle "for reals" and I was happy to have such force multipliers. Even though I am not on board for the adoption of a brand new weapon and cartridge at this time, the tactical advantages of such capabilities can't be understated.

 

[Crosshair]

As we've seen with "recent peer level combat". It's completely unsuitable for anything other than shooting insurgents across a valley.

Recent events shows that the days of "Industrial Warfare" are back. "Quality" simply isn't good enough. Artillery doesn't care that you have a $5,000 scope and 1,200 yard cartridge. Nor do the tanks delivering 100-125mm HE-FRAG from 2,000-4,000 yards away.

We are also seeing what the British concluded ~150 years ago, "The fighting ability of a soldier is inverse to the amount of weight they are carrying." 60+ pound combat loads aren't an option. Choices are going to have to be made on what to leave behind.

I don't have the answers, but I do see there's a problem.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

This is the mindset that got us to forget the lessons learned from Vietnam. And we paid for it in blood dearly during GWOT in the beginning.

But. Muh. Fulda. Gap.

 

[C-grunt]

As we've seen with "recent peer level combat". It's completely unsuitable for anything other than shooting insurgents across a valley.

Recent events shows that the days of "Industrial Warfare" are back. "Quality" simply isn't good enough. Artillery doesn't care that you have a $5,000 scope and 1,200 yard cartridge. Nor do the tanks delivering 100-125mm HE-FRAG from 2,000-4,000 yards away.

We are also seeing what the British concluded ~150 years ago, "The fighting ability of a soldier is inverse to the amount of weight they are carrying." 60+ pound combat loads aren't an option. Choices are going to have to be made on what to leave behind.

I don't have the answers, but I do see there's a problem.

While I am a big believer in the assault rifle concept over the battle rifle, that doesn't diminish the fact that battle rifles have advantages in certain areas. That being range and barrier penetration. Enemy soldiers might not be wearing the latest body armor tech but they still have load bearing vests with radios, magazines, and other gear. Mechanized infantry is becoming more traditional than not. During urban combat a low shot that hits a window sill is more likely to be an effective hit with a battle rifle than an assault rifle. Sub optimal hits at range are more effective. Ukraine has shown us that modern battle will still be in open fields as well as urban centers. It's also shown that good training and good equipment on the individual soldier level make a big difference in the outcome of battles.

Ive said it before, Im a big believer in the assault rifle over the battle rifle. Mostly due to weight and ammo capacity. I dont think the XM5 will be fully adopted to replace the M4 for several reasons. I do believe the XM250 will be adopted to replace the M249 but with a few tweaks like a quick change barrel and rechambered in 7.62 Nato.

 

[tmd16556]

What does it do against drone swarms? That’s the future it seems. The 5.56/5.45 assault rifle/carbine seems fine for most infantry work (even better with the $5,000 accessories, they’re cheap compared to a cruise missile or training a specialist). It doesn’t look like the Kiyv PD was having much luck on drones with AKMs and AK 74s. Maybe bring back the quad 50?

The reloader in me wants to know what powder gets you to 80 kpsi? Tightgroup to the bullet base and good to go? (Kids don’t try this at home, probably a terrible idea). Magnum pistol powders? Or just faster rifle powders?

 

[Crosshair]

Flakpanzer

While I am a big believer in the assault rifle concept over the battle rifle, that doesn't diminish the fact that battle rifles have advantages in certain areas. That being range and barrier penetration. Enemy soldiers might not be wearing the latest body armor tech but they still have load bearing vests with radios, magazines, and other gear. Mechanized infantry is becoming more traditional than not. During urban combat a low shot that hits a window sill is more likely to be an effective hit with a battle rifle than an assault rifle. Sub optimal hits at range are more effective. Ukraine has shown us that modern battle will still be in open fields as well as urban centers. It's also shown that good training and good equipment on the individual soldier level make a big difference in the outcome of battles.

Ive said it before, Im a big believer in the assault rifle over the battle rifle. Mostly due to weight and ammo capacity. I dont think the XM5 will be fully adopted to replace the M4 for several reasons. I do believe the XM250 will be adopted to replace the M249 but with a few tweaks like a quick change barrel and rechambered in 7.62 Nato.

Oh they absolutely do have a niche role. Becoming the standard? We can both agree that it won't. The barrier penetration is really what's valuable, more than the range.

What does it do against drone swarms? That’s the future it seems.

"Drone Swarms" are a marketing slogan that means everything and nothing at the same time. Overwhelming your enemies defenses by numbers is a tactic as old as war itself.

"Kamikaze Drones" and "Loitering Munitions" are largely just re-branding of the term "Cruise Missile". What has happened is that SPAAGs and other gun-based AA systems have gone out of fashion as missiles and airplanes got faster and/or flew higher. These AA missiles themselves are expensive, but that's fine because the aircraft and big cruise missiles are even more expensive. After decades of this trend, combined with advancements in electronics, it was realized that a critical gap now existed in air defenses at the low end. Forget a cruise missile traveling at 500 mph that costs a few million, build 50-100 flying lawnmowers that do 100 mph for the same cost as that big missile, but carry even more total weight of explosives. Doing this in the 1950s would have been kinda stupid, even if the tech did exist, as gun-based AA was as common as dirt and barrage balloons were still a fresh concept. Such drones would have been far less effective then. Now though? The Gepard Flakpanzer and ZSU-23-4 Shilka, BOTH 1960s DESIGNS, are now the cutting edge in dealing with this threat. Weapons systems that were considered either obsolete or an afterthought are once again critically important. Missiles are simply too expensive to use against these weapons. We will likely see smaller systems, maybe using 30 or 50 caliber guns that are cheaper and easier to deploy. There will be danger since these projectiles won't have a self-destruct, so 20mm might be the smallest.

In addition to gun-based systems, there are also microwave based options that will simply fry the drones electronics. Big cruise missiles are made of metal and fly too fast for this method to be really useful. The lawnmowers are slow enough and largely made of plastic/fiberglass that it can work. Doesn't require exact targeting like a laser does, effective against multiple targets, and also doesn't have meaningful collateral damage risk.

The Russians are actually much better positioned to counter this new threat, as their doctrine assumes that they will not have air superiority/supremacy. Thus they never retired their gun-based AA systems. (Gun based systems are shorter range, but much quicker reaction time than missile systems.) Their systems will need modernization to counter these smaller and harder to detect threats, but that is easier to do than building a new system from scratch. Yes the US has the C-RAM, I'm not sure it can be fielded in the numbers needed though.

It will be interesting to see how this all develops.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

Flakpanzer
Oh they absolutely do have a niche role. Becoming the standard? We can both agree that it won't. The barrier penetration is really what's valuable, more than the range.


"Drone Swarms" are a marketing slogan that means everything and nothing at the same time. Overwhelming your enemies defenses by numbers is a tactic as old as war itself.

"Kamikaze Drones" and "Loitering Munitions" are largely just re-branding of the term "Cruise Missile". What has happened is that SPAAGs and other gun-based AA systems have gone out of fashion as missiles and airplanes got faster and/or flew higher. These AA missiles themselves are expensive, but that's fine because the aircraft and big cruise missiles are even more expensive. After decades of this trend, combined with advancements in electronics, it was realized that a critical gap now existed in air defenses at the low end. Forget a cruise missile traveling at 500 mph that costs a few million, build 50-100 flying lawnmowers that do 100 mph for the same cost as that big missile, but carry even more total weight of explosives. Doing this in the 1950s would have been kinda stupid, even if the tech did exist, as gun-based AA was as common as dirt and barrage balloons were still a fresh concept. Such drones would have been far less effective then. Now though? The Gepard Flakpanzer and ZSU-23-4 Shilka, BOTH 1960s DESIGNS, are now the cutting edge in dealing with this threat. Weapons systems that were considered either obsolete or an afterthought are once again critically important. Missiles are simply too expensive to use against these weapons. We will likely see smaller systems, maybe using 30 or 50 caliber guns that are cheaper and easier to deploy. There will be danger since these projectiles won't have a self-destruct, so 20mm might be the smallest.

In addition to gun-based systems, there are also microwave based options that will simply fry the drones electronics. Big cruise missiles are made of metal and fly too fast for this method to be really useful. The lawnmowers are slow enough and largely made of plastic/fiberglass that it can work. Doesn't require exact targeting like a laser does, effective against multiple targets, and also doesn't have meaningful collateral damage risk.

The Russians are actually much better positioned to counter this new threat, as their doctrine assumes that they will not have air superiority/supremacy. Thus they never retired their gun-based AA systems. (Gun based systems are shorter range, but much quicker reaction time than missile systems.) Their systems will need modernization to counter these smaller and harder to detect threats, but that is easier to do than building a new system from scratch. Yes the US has the C-RAM, I'm not sure it can be fielded in the numbers needed though.

It will be interesting to see how this all develops.

And here we go into the weeds.

I agree with you, and have been stating for a very long time that us counting on air superiority to save the day is very ignorant. We still should have a SPAAG dedicated vehicle and not a 550 cord and 100 MPH tape expedient fix like the Linebacker and Avenger and they should have tried to do another one after the SGT York failed. All they had to do was mate the Gepard's turret to at the the time an M-60 chassis or now an M-1 chassis and we would have been great.

The other problem we had but never talked about is that our self propelled artillery was still out out date and couldn't match the latest offerings. Hopefully this will all change with the XM1299. Extended range but more importantly a higher rate of fire is the prize here.

But still, none of this is about the XM5 and the caliber it shoots per the OP. So again, weeds.

 

[mcb]

What does it do against drone swarms? That’s the future it seems. The 5.56/5.45 assault rifle/carbine seems fine for most infantry work (even better with the $5,000 accessories, they’re cheap compared to a cruise missile or training a specialist). It doesn’t look like the Kiyv PD was having much luck on drones with AKMs and AK 74s. Maybe bring back the quad 50?

The reloader in me wants to know what powder gets you to 80 kpsi? Tightgroup to the bullet base and good to go? (Kids don’t try this at home, probably a terrible idea). Magnum pistol powders? Or just faster rifle powders?

From my delving in Quickloads to go from 60-65 ksi to 80ksi does not take a dramatic change in powder. Shift to slightly faster rifle powders and bump up the change slightly. For a given cartridge and bullet QL has a function that will suggest powders given certain parameters (basically it runs the simulation a heap of times trying various powders and charges to meet your parameters). I use 7mm-08 and 139gr bullet and then had is suggest powders that produced 80,000 psi without going over 100% usable case volume and there was a very nice selection of powders and charges that gave full or nearly full cases, produced pressures at 80 ksi and resulted in good muzzle velocities (that matched close enough to reported 277 Fury claims). All of those powders were common rifle powders if a bit skewed to the faster side by a smig for that bullet and cartridge. That was just a quick and dirty playing. If I had the actual case volume of the 277 Fury hybrid case we could work up something even more accurate but it was interesting insight. 80 ksi is not really that big of a deal once you get the brass cartridge out of the way. Brass starts to flows like putty at 75-80 ksi or higher. And setting the barrel burning aspect aside too...

 

[FL-NC]

I think its funny how so many people here support theories of future near peer engagements, drone warfare, what they think will happen with combined arms doctrine, etc. when everyone has been almost completely wrong about how things may go down since 1946.- not to mention, I'm relatively certain few if any members here will even have a place in boots in the next fight. There was trillions spent on a war with the ruskies until 1991, with every piece of equipment, tank, aircraft, WMD, and so on built in mind to support this war. Instead we ended up in korea, proxy supporting an invasion of cuba, vn, dom-rep, lebanon, el sal, grenada, panama, and so on. The biggest benefit of having so much war stock and personnel forward deployed in europe after 1945 was that it was available to support operations in the mideast and euro conflicts in third-rate countries like bosnia and kosovo. So many "experts" were convinced that we would end up decisively engaged (after the ussr thing didn't play out) in another dirty round of banana wars in latin America, but then the invasion of kuwait in 1990 blew that theory out of the water, but we were still caught with our pants down in 2001.
Just an observation.

 

[mcb]

Drones are playing a pretty active and often improvised role in the current Ukrainian conflict. Strapping grenades or mortar round to the bottom of commercial or even hobby drones for improvised unmanned weapon systems is pretty wide spread in that theater. It will be interesting to see what comes out of that conflict .

 

[Robert]

We have drifted pretty far off topic. Future war planning, while a fascinating subject, is off topic for THR.