New calibre released by Sig Sauer, if you can get past the cheesy name, pretty impressivve ballistics from short barrels.
https://www.tactical-life.com/gear/a...d-case-design/
Printable View
New calibre released by Sig Sauer, if you can get past the cheesy name, pretty impressivve ballistics from short barrels.
https://www.tactical-life.com/gear/a...d-case-design/
So apart from a shorter barrel it's almost the same as the mighty .270Win.
I would like to know more about the case design.
A .270 rem mag would hose it with 150g and up.
Yeah it would but the whole point was to function in Ar15s with carbine barrels. Pretty good performance I thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmsaum
I think I'm becoming a Fudd.
Just can't love the rifle that SIG have made.
It may be a new caliber that supplants 6.5 Grendarooni and 6.5 Creedwanger as the hottest new thing, but it's just too fugly to look at.
I guess eventually this case design will spread accros a lot of other chamberings.....another 20-25 percent safe operating pressure is really going to stoke up some calibers.
Yeah time will tell if the concept works reliably, across a variety of firearms and if the firearms community accepts it.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Would be cool with a less gay projectile, 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm doesn't really matter.
at least it's honest about it's bullet size .277
It is fairly lightweight rifle for something entirely made of metal.
Reloadable cases?
Greetings All,
I think I am with Max Headroom in suffering from new cartridge overload. It seems like yesterday that I spotted the .350 Legend. This seems to be a stretched version of the .351 Winchester Self Loading, complete with odd ball case head size and projectile diameter, developed to game some arcane US game laws. Now we have the .277 Fury with a fancy hybrid, read two piece, case that produces its ballistics due to pressures of 80,000 psi. Cases with a stainless steel head and replaceable brass bodies were offered to hand loaders a number of years back in the US. Disappeared without trace after a year or two. Still in this post Obama US firearms sales slump it may keep the tills ringing. I wonder how much the cartridges cost. I think I will go out to the shed and load a few .303 cartridges until my head clears.
Grandpamac.
I have to agree @grandpamac. How many cartridges does the world need, the ones made 100 years ago still kill things dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
ah its like Beer - the original was a very long time ago - some people think they can improve on it (and proving they can't at the same time)
Pin removed and leaving room
So we should all use .303s and disown anything new because 303 will kill things dead....? HaQuote:
Originally Posted by RUMPY
Not sure why new or refined old technology is so offensive to lots of (mostly old) firearms enthusiasts. If you want to carry your wooden 303 firing old slow mil surp ammo with open sights around the hills, in a swandri and red bands, sure, you’ll kill things dead. Are there better tools for the job or improved ways of doing things...?
My previous statement is probably a bit of an exaggeration on the time frame. I agree that technology is our friend in regards to improvement. I myself work for a high production food manufacturer so I am aware of constant change and improvements available. BUT, with calibers a lot of the new ones seem so much like many others. I'm not a reloader but the basic physics can't be changed. This new fury is only 'better' because they are pushing the pressure up to scary levels. How many rifles will blow to bits in the future if this trend becomes the new normal?
A lot of the new cartridges do not offer a substantial improvement over existing ones, but many of them do have features or improvements that do make them a better choice.
6.5 Creedmoor is no better than 260 but with the availability of good cheap ammo for the 6.5 CM I would recommend it to a new shooter in a heartbeat, whereas I wouldn't a 260.
There are dozens of 6mm cartridges out there, all offering similar ballistics but all having different strengths and weaknesses.
The great thing is if you don't like the new whiz bang offerings yoy can still by a 308 or 30-30 or 270 as they aren't going anywhere.
Its not the new normal it IS NORMAL!Quote:
Originally Posted by RUMPY
We have been pushing pressures up ever since the development of smokeless powders.
Greetings to you both Sakoswarosorted and RUMPY,
My point, perhaps poorly made is that here are two new cartridges related to technology that has failed commercially in the past that appear to be aimed to fill voids that do not exist. It seems to me (and I have been wrong in the past) that their life may be short. Other cartridges that have appeared recently such as the 6.5 and .30 PRC plus the 6.5 Grendel and Creedmoor and others do seem to fill a gap. Two of my recently purchased rifles (this century) are T3 Lites in 6.5 x 55 and .223 (8 inch twist) might have been a Creedmoor and a Grendel if I had procrastinated a bit longer. I do qualify as an old firearms enthusiast but my Red Bands are only used for gardening and my last Swandri has long rotted away. The T3 6.5 mm wears a 6 power scope and is a great lightweight stalking rifle my lightweight stalking body however seems to have deserted me. Hand loading for my modest collection of old soldiers is most enjoyable to me hence my last comment.
All the Best Grandpamac.
yip the mighty poohseventy is pretty good as it is...if you want to go smaller there are the 6.8s to play with.....
The Grendel was designed specifically to work in the AR15, it has just made it's way into micro action hunting rifles, it was never designed to replace the 6.5x55 or similar cartridges.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
The Creedmoor was basically meant to compete with the 6.5x55 and 260 but fit comfortably into a short action.
In a way it was a marketing exercise, but right from day dot the cartridge was deigned for target shooting and was available in suitable target rifles, with a sensible barrel twist and good factory ammo available for target shooters from day one. Something the 260 and Remington never did.
The PRCs are similar to the Creedmoor in that they were offering what many other cartridges did (mostly wildcats) but good factory rifles and ammo was available from the out set.
They may not have been filling voids as far as ballistics goes, but you'd be hard pressed to find factory rifles and factory ammo at the same price that offers the same performance as these.
I shoot a 260 and think it's great, there's no need for me to sell it and buy a Creedmoor but that doesn't mean there are no benefits to the CM over the 260.
First and foremost being factory ammo, don't think I've ever seen a box of 260 ammo for sale.
All agreed.
As you say, some of the major pluses often cited for the Creedmoor is that it is shorter than a .260, better fits a short action and was designed for target shooting so is “inherently accurate” (whatever that means). If those are major pluses, surely the 6.5 x 47 Lapua would be an even better choice? It’s shorter still and was also designed as a target cartridge. Admittedly, Hornady has supported the Creedmoor far better with quality ammunition in sufficient quantities, and manufacturers have got on board with a huge selection of rifles.
My point? Perhaps Creedmoor is no better than others; just better supported? I don’t have a dog in the fight as I don’t have a 6.5, and I would never criticise anyone’s choice. Personally, if I wanted a 6.5 it would be the Lapua. No desire here to be pushing velocities to the max.
Cheers
You are bang on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire
A guy can walk into a gun store, buy a heavy barrel 6.5CM and some good factroy match ammo, slap on a scope and you can shoot to a 1000m and not be left wanting. I've never seen 260 or 6.5x47L ammo in a gun shop for either hunting or target.
The shorter OAL length does help the Creedmoor, but some factory rifles will get a 260 to the lands at mag length.
The 6.5x47L is claimed to be more inherently accurate, which does seem to have some truth to it but it's not reason enough to go that route for most people.
The real irony is it's taken the yanks 70 odd years to concede that the Poms were right about the .280 Enfield cartridge. Being sad sacks and would pull out of NATO if everyone didn't adopt 7.62 x51.
Are there any other hunting rifles with an aluminium receiver ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Friwi
The 277 Sig seems to have been designed for use in a machine gun rather than ground up as a sustainable, reloadable cartridge for hunters. The civvie market might be just an afterthought to keep it in production till a contract comes through. I'll believe it when I see Redding dies for sale. or at least on the SAAMI new pages This would be new technology, new materials, ways of assessing pressure signs, headspace control - is it off the belt?.
It must be a cracker powder they use to get WSM energy out of a 308 sized case. And all burned in a 16".
What sort of primers can stand 80,000 psi ?
Ha ! Plenty of questions on this one !
Yeah all bloody good points, pretty interesting. I would definitely look at one of their rifles and depending on availability of components and more SAAMI offerings itd be very tempting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagheera
OK, so its a bit heavier than the standard weight Sako 85 or Tikka T3 with 22" barrels and a bit more expensive than the Sako (benchmark for accurate midweight quality hunting rifles in NZ).
But: It has a folding stock with adjustable butt and cheekpiece. :)
A carbon foreend might make it more elegant for pure hunting
Ideally, I'd like steel component in one piece from the bolt lug recesses to where the barrel bears in and then up to the picatiiny rail.
I suppose shotgun shells have metal base and plastic case ...
It will be interesting to see whether concentricity is even a relevant measurement with a plastic case.
I think I will just stick with my 270. It does the same thing and I like simple. It reflects me :D Looks like another bunch of new 270 owners on the horizon. I love that the military have tested everything and after millions spent in research, have arrived at the conclusion that the .277 calibre is best overall. You 270 knockers will love that ay ;) Go on Mr Songhurst. Go buy one. You know you want to..................
Rifles with alloy receivers generally have the bolt locking into the barrel like the Rosler Titan. The original article describes and shows a Brass case, not plastic, with a stainless head which seems far more logical if 80,000 psi is the target. Running a fast burning powder is a simple option for the short barrel IF you can live with the increase in peak pressure which is the issue they seemed to have solved with the new case and rifle design and I dont think they would care about the percentage of powder burnt at all. No idea what they've done with the primer or if these cases will even be re loadable, there is a huge market for factory ammunition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagheera
Mutter mutter mutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiawatha
I love the 7mmRM in theory. I just cant afford to run one as a target rifle. I think the same would apply to this new cal.
Wonder how long before we see one in stores . Besides 277 sig fury sounds way cooler than 270 win;)
If this turns out to work as they say it is a massive leap forward in firearms ballistics technology, not just another Creedmore.
I'd be highly skeptical if it wasn't Sig putting it out, they are making good stuff at the moment.
This would certainly be a perfect alrounder for NZ conditions and even better designed for short barrels. Also throw in bulk milsurp ammo supply.
Ticks all the boxes.
Wonder how it would go in a longer barrel say 24 inch ? Maybe now the 277 will get some better bullet options and some new ones ,
Much better in a longer barrel, but the real advantage for us is they are scientifically setting up for short barrel use special powders. This has long been one of main thread topics on here is sharing data on improving short-barrel performance of various calibres through experimentation of handloading.Quote:
Originally Posted by wayno
Whilst I like handloading, if could by bulk cheap off shelve quality ammo tailored to rifle I would also do this.
