The real thing in the 277 fury is impressive but so is the price and I don't see other countries being stupid enough to adopt it. That means if we ever have to start feeding those guns a steady diet we'll be lucky to get an adequate supply of the brass cased flavor. I think this was an asinine move on the part of the government.
Unless they .277 Fury sells the high pressure variant on the market, I just can't see any reason why someone would choose it over 6.5CM, .308 Win, or 7mm-08. This low pressure variant doesn't do anything that these other cartridges don't. Now if the high pressure one makes it to the civilian market, and performs as well or better than .270 Win...? We might have something that mountain hunters could really be interested in.
@@nextlifeonearth I didn't realize they hit the market yet. Do you know anything about them? I'm eager to see if they perform as well as they are touting.
@@JKGuitarPro That steel cartridge is mandatory. I have one test gun with the swollen brass case pushing out the extractor, preventing the bolt from turning. Some companies are already making high pressure bolts.
I honestly think that in both tests... the 277 is dumping more energy where it needs too. Thus making it the best at stopping the bad guys. That 6.5 would prob be better against a vehicle.
The .277 certainly much more velocity behind it, giving it much better penetration at closer ranges. However I'd be interested to see how both rounds perform on target at longer ranges from 100 yds to 1000 yds, as well as a comparison of ballistics, drop, drift, velocities, coefficients, etc. Barrier penetration alone isn't enough to really have an opinion one way or the other, and every cartridge should be evaluated for it's intended situational use. Good video.
.277 Fury, simply because it can only go up in performance, based off the case technology. The tested cartridge is essentially a double underloaded variant of the 6.8x51 which will be used in combat. The brass case variant is technically considered the "Training ammo" whereas the military variant will have improved projectiles, in addition to increased pressure, which requires the Hybrid case design.
100% these test are a very misleading when you aren't using the military bullet construction or velocity. Still fun to casually watch but not worth drawing any conclusions off of.
The steel base two part case is for extra strength for the non training round, the all brass is the down loaded training/civilian ammo. Otherwise you're correct, this was the "wimp" training ammo.
The steel base two part case is for extra strength for the non training round, the all brass is the down loaded training/civilian ammo. Otherwise you're correct, this was the "wimp" training ammo.
@@Sightbain.Not really! Comparing commercial projectiles to penetrators is apples to oranges and would be highly misleading. Further 80k psi is just moronic, have fun with throat erosion degrading your barrel within 500 rounds. It's suspicious that the military hasn't sent a single fury rifle for field testing anywhere.
@@jimellenw Yeah, 6.5CM is an okay cartridge but nothing special. You'd never think that if you listened to all the hype because Hornady has become a marketing master.
@@jimellenwFolklore? Buddy the Creedmoor replaced the 7.62 NATO in all of SOCOMs marksman rifles for a reason. No hold over for elevation at 500 yards, and very little hold over for elevation at 1000 yards. Neither the 7.62mm nor the .277 Fury can boast that.
Awesome video as usual man. The energy dump from the .277 on the first test, 6x6, ply and steel plate, was incredible. Love the content you put out. Quickly becoming one of my favorite guntube channels. Nice tactical crocs btw 😂😂😂
It is too soon to tell if .277 Fury was a mistake for the military as the civilian versions are neutered. They have spec'ed .277 Fury for DMR, designated marksman rifle, and that higher velocity would make it more suitable for longer distance.
This. I understand the need for click-bait titles, but it's really apples and oranges if one is talking about the military procurement decision while testing the civilian version at the much lower pressure then mil spec. Still, a cool video but the results have nothing to do with the stated premise.
@@garycox7508 The US military likes to test a variety of weaponry but they are very slow to adopt. It is why the M16/M4 has been used for almost 70 years, using the same caliber. I am sure they tested the heck out of this new .277 Fury and that it will excel at the mission it is aimed at. On paper, it seems like a winner albeit expensive.
@@crazy8sdrums I don't disagree and I was attempting to agree with your original statement. The test shown in this video is not representative of what the mil-spec ammo will do, thus while entertaining, is basically useless in answering the question of "did the military make a mistake?" I think we are saying basically the same thing...I just wanted to make clear that I wasn't trying to contradict you. The Sig Spear (for one) is available as a civilian version..and full pressure ammo can be purchased to feed it if BB wants to actually answer the question "for realz".
@@garycox7508 Totally cool, neighbor. TBH, I am pretty interested in .277 Fury. 5.56 is too weak for some stuff, and .308 is too much. The .277 should be in between both but with better armor defeating ability and flatter trajectory. I think BB was kind of latching on to the responses of some of the other gun guys on utubes. There is a lot of skepticism, and even a fair bit of angst about the choice of ammo. 6.5 Grendel seems to have rallied a lot of fanboy support and I think many were rooting for the military to use it too...but were let down when the .277 Fury was chosen. I am not invested in either, but from how it is on paper, I think I would opt for the .277 Fury.
@@garycox7508 There is also a rumor that the military is going to entirely switch over to .277 Fury for all of their infantry rifles. Unconfirmed rumor...but some hints have been dropped about that. IMO, that will have a negative impact on the civilian market initially...and it already is affecting 5.56 prices a bit. Lake City has been ordered to retool everything to .277F and stop producing 5.56 for the civilian market. It can be viewed as an attack avenue at the 2a, making it more difficult for civies to feed their scary black rifles. Be vigilant!
I mean, yeah. It's 6.8 vs 6.5. And, if they had the same bullet caliber we could safely say that one wasted more energy to make bigger hole instead of going deeper.
@@WyFoster It's barrier penetration being tested here so, going deeper means better in this case. Terminal performance on flesh? -- Yeah, bigger hole would be better.
The .277 looks like it will be better for barrier penetration out of a shorter barrel (especially the high-pressure variant, but with its high ballistic coefficient, the 6.5mm will probably hold up better at longer ranges. With only a barrel and bolt change, the XM5 can be transformed from a wall-busting fighting rifle to a far-reaching long rifle and back again.
Would be interesting if the bullets fired in the sand medium could be measured and retrieved to compare how far they went and condition of bullet; came apart, stayed straight, etc. Love watching your videos. Appreciate the work. Also like Midway.
Maybe a small shop vac? Slowly vacuum up the sand until a projectile or fragments are uncovered. You may be able to approximate how much penetration was achieved in the sand. With a scale, you could tell how much weight it retained. Then dump the sand back in the box from the vac and test the next round. It would require regular cleaning of the filter in order to maintain enough vacuum and would likely expend some sand each time that would need to be noted and replaced to maintain the same weight/volume of sand in the box.
I don't see why they don't just stick with 7.62x51. If pressure is what they're after... steel cased 7.61x51 is the answer. Crank the pressures up and they're on a better place than .277
Weight and ballistics. The .277 bullets just fly better due to better ballistics. I personally think they should have went with a straight 7mm bullet at about 170-180gr as they are some of the most efficient bullets out there.
Not to forget the crazy amounts of wear and tear caused in the internals of the firearm by the .277 FURY - means more parts replacement and more purchases to be made over the years - good for business bad for real life conflicts. I’d say 6.5 CM is the better cartridge overall. If penetration becomes an issue for the military, they can easily come up with a steel core/tungsten core variant projectile without having to sacrifice the rifle to higher pressures
It's a fine test for those rounds tested. However, you would need the military load for the 277 Fury and a load that would have to be developed by the military for the 6.5 Creedmoor to have an accurate representation of which cartridge is capable of penetrating deeper in a given media.
Love your channel!! Would definitely like to see a 270win vs 6.8 western video. It would be interesting to see how much better the 6.8 western would do. I’m interested in purchasing a 6.8 western but I’m not sold on just hype alone I would like visual data.
They created a new cartridge based on a new bullet because they wanted to avoid legal problems - learning from past experience. They started with a projectile design optimized for defeating body armor without having to use tungsten.
I feel like the sandbox dimensions should be reduced by maybe 1x1 inch to give a chance for high performance cartridges to penetrate it. Great testing as usual B.B.
Impressed with the 6.5. I didn’t think it would be that close. I hunt with a Grendel and it is impressive for it’s size. The fury does hit hard though.
I love the Creedmoor, it would be a good military cartridge like 6.5 Swede was but we really missed the boat when the US military insisted on 7.62x51 instead of the 7mm Optimum that the Belgians developed for the original version of the FAL rifle. It split the difference between an intermediate and a full power MBR round but still had the long range terminal performance of a MBR. Ultimately choosing 7.62x51 made NATO step down to 5.56x45 which also made sense but imagine the military surplus if we were going on 70 years of one common ammo and service rifle... Any way, Creedmoor didn't make sense because 7.62x51 was close enough and already adopted, with guns in the inventory and snipers had bolt action options with even better long range ballistics. The 277 Fury is an oddball. I would be glad if it found a niche where it excels but I think the state of ground warfare kind of nullifies its advantages. Nobody is going to carry it in the field unless they have a vehicle hauling the ammo because it's not going to be the common caliber. If a sniper wants a ballistic edge, a 338 Lapua Magnum rifle is heavier but hits a lot harder and a 300 Win-Mag is probably comparable in weight and ballistics and also in inventory. Honestly if we had a breakdown of 5.7x28, 6.8SPC, 6.5 Creedmoor, something like a 7mm Magnum and then 338 Lapua Magnum and .50 BMG, we would have better choices for PDW, Assault Rifle, DMR and various sniper weapon systems. Maybe "something like a 7mm Magnum" could be a 284 Winchester given the steel case 80ksi treatment shooting a 195 grain bullet. The slight problem with that is it would require close to a .30-06 sized action so something like a MG43 if they wanted it in a machine gun (if that can hold the pressure).
Steel is less dense than lead. To construct a bullet of similar weight to a lead one, the steel bullet would be far longer. The longer bullet would take up more room inside the case for powder, so you'll lose a lot of velocity and risk pressure spikes. Also a solid steel projectile will be very hard on barrels because steel doesn't deform easily to match the rifling in the barrel. Every shot will start taking material from the rifling with it.
Holy crap that was anemic 6.5 CM. We have a 22" 6.5 CM that shoots factory 143 precision hunter at 2665 fps, which is 2255 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. What brand of ammo was this? It is really under-loaded. I know this is a 20" barrel, but it should still be producing above 2600 fps at the muzzle with a 140 grain pill. Barrel length testing shows typical 6.5 CM loads in the 130-147 range are about 25 fps/inch of barrel. I think a full-power 6.5 CM load will produce 2200--2300 ft-lbs of muzzle energy depending on bullet specifics. You may want to look for a different load (or hand load). It's the penetration test, not the low-recoil plinking load test :)
It is S&B factory 140 gr fmj. Per the box (whatever barrel length they used) it is rated at 2,657 fps so definitely not as hot as the 143 gr Precision Hunter.
I think the wood block may show why they chose the 277 Fury over the Creedmoor. It looks like the Fury destabilized and tumbled passing through the wood block. This may have translated, during testing, to greater terminal performance in tissue. Since military can't use bullets designed to expand or fragment, one that just happens to tumble in soft tissue is a great advantage.
6.5 is a barrel burner, .277 full power is barrel napalm. Hope the military has lots of barrel replacements ready for their new rifles. I love the idea of the .277 for a DMR guy and even a mg guy but the average joe just doesn't need it. It's also pretty funny we convinced nato to adopt the 5.56 so we all use the same ammo, and now were dumping the 5.56.
You can't say the military "Made a BIG Mistake" if you're not comparing their new cartridge. All you're confirming is what any .270 Winchester shooter already knows. You would have done better to get your hands on a .270 Weatherby Magnum which pushes a 130gr. bullet at a blistering 3,400 fps, depending on barrel length.
@derekheuring2984 Ok, I wasn't quite sure what you meant. An advantage of shooting a smaller capacity cartridge like the 277 Fury ay high pressure is with shorter barrels. It does more work in the first few inches of the barrel. Although the Fury's performance essentially matches the larger-capacity 270 WSM with a 24" barrel, it will do much better with a 13 or 16" one.
Consider the following comparison: 556-M855a1 vs 6x45 (6mm-223) with a custom high pressure chambering in a steelhead case (like the military 277 Fury) for allowing a quicker/higher pressure powder.
The XM7 is multicaliber anyway and can shoot 7,62;6,8 and 6,5CM. It’s highly possible that it’s for giving the choice in case the .277 is abandoned for 7,62 or military creedmoor. I think the 6,8 was mandatory by the Army, thus SUG couldn’t use the caliber they would have maybe choose. People are talking about 6,8 steel base, but SIG did a complete line up from 5,56 to 7,62 and more of steel based cartridge (it includes 6,5CM). So I believe it might change depending on ongoing issues, military choice, etc. We’ll see what they will prefer to have in the long term. So yeah the pressure and steel base isn’t limited to .277. But it’s highly possible that like soviet nearly did with 6x49mm. Fully powered intermediate cartridge MCHV might be the futur due to SCHV becoming obsolete.
Man!!! I wish you had the 80,000psi rounds and an 18 or 16" barrel system that would work for it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say 1" of mild steel penetration.
Bullet construction would make a big difference. The current military general purpose bullet has a hardened steel tip (think of a bigger, sleeker M855A1 bullet). A lot of practice FMJ bullets have thin jackets and soft cores to cause minimal damage to steel targets.
@@bananaballistics Have you seen much difference between bullet types in normal cartridges? Apparently, soft lead is needed for the bond in bonded bullets, but some cup in core hunting bullets use harder lead, for example. I know that WWII-era FMJ used a some lead alloys to increase hardness before they went to steel core. I wonder if that makes much of a difference?
I think the Creedmoor is legally a huge alternative around the globe where military cartridges like the 308 have now been banned for civilian use. It is smart but scary! So now Hornady wants you to buy a weapon that is inferior at all levels for military use or protection. So in America we tend to love are military cartridges they are durable, versatile and accurate. Even canada who runs the F1 Class competition have changed the rules to favor the 6.5 in 1,000 yard competition by banning any 308 cartridge above 155. That is a killer when the 175's are excellent for 1,000 yard competition.
Honestly, they're very close to equal. I think .277 Fury was designed to feed better in AR-style rifles, though, much like .300 Blackout almost exactly mimics 7.62x39 but is more reliable in AR's. And much like 7.62x39, the reliability issues have mostly been fixed at this point. With .277 Fury being adopted as a military cartridge, I think it will eventually surpass 6.5 Creedmoor in popularity.
Reading some of the comments. I don’t know if I agree with them. I’m wondering if the 277 is expanding or is it tumbling? It’s a heavier bullet moving around 100 FPS faster. As far as energy dump. Nice
I think in terms of pure horsepower, the 277 has the edge. BUT! The 277 rounds appeared (to me) to be tumbling as they passed through the 6x6 wood, the plywood on the other side looked like the rounds were keyholing and that's why they didn't penetrate the follow-on steel target. So, in terms of overall (and in terms of economics/finding the rounds) I'd say the 6.5 creedmore won.
277 fury probably needs the close to 3000 fps velocity as per its design to get the amount of spin to stabilize it. Lower velocity will result in less spin even in the same twist rate hence it started key-holing in the first test. But the full brass case is the gimped round.
The standard barrel twist for the 277 Fury is one turn in 7 inches, that is plenty fast. A standard 270 is 1 in 10". The 6.8 SPC guys can stabilize 130 grain bullets at slower speeds with a 1 in 11" twist.
@@jfess1911 In my experience (sample size of two) my stock Stag Arms chrome-lined 6.8spc upper groups the Hornady 120gr SSTs in about the size of a dinner plate at 100yds (they weren't key-holing, though). Conversely, it grouped the 90gr Federal Fusion rounds inside 1.5in. I also tried a 1:10 twist chrome-lined barrel left-over from when that was a thing. No joy. It was so strange I built a new upper with a stainless barrel as an experiment, and I had no problem with the heavy SSTs through the stainless barrel. Go figure! So, maybe chrome-lined barrels don't like heavy bullets in this caliber?
@@spencerbookman2523 Some barrels just don't like certain bullets. I wish that there was something smarter to say, but it's true. The 120 SST load from Hornady is probably the most used ammo in 6.8 SPC-land, largely because it is usually available somewhere and works well for most.
Right now my trusty 308 serves my purpose. If I was to choose right now it would be 6.5 creedmore for price and availability. As the 277 becomes more available and cost comes down i would go 277.
So my first question is why such low velocity out of the 6.5 Creedmoor, granted they usually come out of a 24" barrel but your readings appeared to be several hundred feet slower than I usually see on these test. I mean one would think 2500 ft/sec out of a 20" barrel, what's up.???
The only miscalculated in releasing it to the public is that no one makes a barrel for 80,000 PSI. It was strange too cuz higher pressure wasn’t the thing at the time.
Pretty much any action and barrel that can shoot a 300 WSM can deal with the 277 Fury. The case and bullet are smaller diameters which keep thicker steel walls. For most rifles, the bolt is the weak link. Nevertheless, the bolt thrust of the 277 Fury is still less than the WSM's and about the same as the 6.5 PRC.
Not looking good? Looks to me like the .277 expenened most of its energy on the wood which for me means its better than the 6.5 that just continued on through. The .277 looks like it has way more thump than the 6.5 on the target.
They are neck and neck. I’d bet the Creedmoor advantage is the higher BC giving it better penetration at comparatively lower velocities. I’d be curious to see the effect on gel or animals. Seems like comparing 6.8 spc and 6.5 grendel. They end up performing almost exactly the same because at a certain energy level BC wins over muzzle velocity
Yes, the 6.8x51 was built around the bullet supplied by the Army. The 6.5 Creedmoor was designed as a 1000 yard target round and can use sleeker bullets with longer ogives. The case capacity of the 6.8x51 is greater, so even though both are loaded to about the same pressure in this test, the 6.8 has more velocity.
Hey! I have a question - are you running the Moriarti Arms AR10 upper (277 fury)? They claim on their website that it's rated for the Sig Hybrid Ammo, which is 80,000 psi of pressure, but I cannot find any BCG's rated for that, and communication from them is horrible.
You gotta make a duct tape handle for your box 'O sand. You could also borrow the guitar riff from Alice in Chains as an intro lick for the Saaaaaannndd In the BOX.
Love the video. Also this new barrier testing versus is a great idea. If i remember correctly you mentioned in a video you were in TN? So if you ever want to bring out some of my 'fun' rifles it would be a short drive. Shoot me a message if you're interested!
Since the .277 seems to be expanding while still penetrating it seems like that would translate to a bigger hole and more transferred energy on target post barrier penetration.
The power and velocity difference is not really surprising when you consider, larger bore diameter and combination with a lighter projectile weight for the .277 vs the 6.5 (.264) with a little more space in the bore for a better powder burn, and being a few grains less, you will see velocity increases. This can also be observed with .308 vs 6.5.. it's kind of in a oddball size range and powder capacity that it's potential for velocity is kinda low by comparison with a lot of other cartridges. But 6.5 is more efficient. The case lasts longer, and it uses less powder.
Not exactly a fair test for the 6.5 creedmore. Those rounds are loaded very low. The 6.5 creed can easily send a 140gn projectile downrange with a muzzle velocity of 2850fps.
6.8x51mm is similar to the 7.62x51mm The .308 (7.62) parent case necked down…. 0.82 mm difference in diameter from the .277 -or- 308 -277 = 031 mm difference So…..just me, but wouldn’t it be better to make a bi-metal case for the .308 for ease of use? I’ve used the 7.62 quite a bit in my long long military career.
The case shape is "improved", so not just a neck down. Less case taper, a sharper shoulder that is moved foreward and, consequently, a shorter neck. The Army's goal was a longer ranged, significantly lighter round. They wanted 300 Win Mag trajectory and significantly better body armor defeat than 7.62x51. Somehow they decided on a .277" bullet. The Army designed the bullet and told the NGSW competitors the velocity they wanted and weapon length they wanted it in (it appears they eventually backed down the original velocity spec somewhat). The SIG candidate won the NGSW competition, but had by far the heaviest cartridge. When SIG claims a weight reduction, they sometimes compare against a 270 WSM, not 7.62x51. They use terms like "equivalent power cartridge", if you look closely. The Army wanted a suppressed rifle with a relatively short OAL. One of the NGSW candidates had a lighter polymer cartridge that ran at normal pressures but needed a bullpup configuration to get long enough barrel to meet the velocity spec. SIG went with a standard configuration rifle but needed a shorter barrel to meet the length spec. That's how we got 80,000 psi and a strong but heavy case. Sticking with 7.61x51 but with a higher pressure is indeed an option but comes with its own problems. A high pressure 7.62x51 would also require new or modified weapons but could not easily match the BC and trajectory of the 6.8x51. To match the long range trajectory of the 6.8x51 (without a redesign to use a longer-ogived bullet) the high-pressure 7.62 would need a heavier bullet and produce close to 300 Win Mag levels of recoil. To reduce bullet weight (and recoil) somewhat, a bullet with a longer, sleeker ogive could be used. Unfortunately, the designs of the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 limit them to bullets with relatively short ogives and mediocre BC's. Using longer, sleeker bullets in either would require reducing case length (and reducing powder capacity) or just going with longer bullets that would no longer fit in existing weapons.
@@jfess1911 ohh K, so my Mk-39 I used in Iraq…..I can shoot at 1,000 meters with the 175 gr AB-39 and have no barrels to replace and still took the target out The same in Syria & Afghanistan. So basically the .308 (7.62x51 mm) / 7mm-08 and the .277 Fury aka 6.8x51 mm are all based upon the same brass. Near the same BC. To me, the testing we did in Hawthorne when I was stationed at MWTC Bridgeport showed not much difference in performance. We aren’t civilian hunters….or shooters. This was Marine Corps testing and there were some army choads there too, but….thats where I got my hands on the plastic .308 ammo with the steel base. Anyways, it just sounds like more marketing hype because civvies want what the US military uses. What better way to make money…..sell it to the military. Just glad I retired when I did. Honestly, I’m still shooting milk jugs at 1,000 with a .308 like it’s cool with 35 mph winds. Oh, and it’s still got punch at a mile as well…..still shooting my M40A5 and Mk-22 MRAD in .308 that far. Just my .02 cents
@@MountaintravelerEddie I'm impressed. Seriously. I am not so certain that the 6.8x51 is the greatest idea. The Army was hoping for a breakthrough: better than 7.62x51 performance with lightweight ammo and a weapon the weight and the size of an M4. It didn't turn out that way. Once the Army made the shift to lead free bullets with steel penetrators (M80A1) the long range performance of 7.62x51 went down the tubes. They also kept shifting to shorter barrels and dropping velocity. They got worried when they saw decent body armor showing up in places like Syria and realized the M4 would soon have problems with penetration in a lot of theaters. Not many soldiers have your capability to shoot around the body armor. The current idea is to give every soldier a weapon that can deal with US-grade body armor...and have the longe range of your Mk-39... in a shorter weapon that also has a suppressor... and an optic that will automatically give them correct elevation but not windage.... and expect them to hit at extended ranges with non-match-grade EPR-style ammo. It is an overreach. FWIW, there is actually two potential markets for hunters with the 277 Fury, though. The first is for hunters who want 270 Win performance from a handy 16" barrel + suppressor setup. The second is for hunters who usually hunt deer at shorter ranges but occasionally need a longer ranged rifle or want to hunt bigger game. They can use the less expensive low pressure ammo most of the time and only use the expensive high-pressure stuff for those special trips.
@@jfess1911 yeah that’s true, civvies can use it, but for hunting applications, there is a plethora of calibers already available. Of course some people want a small lightweight weapon that will shoot a larger bullet with more punch, it took the Marine Corps a long time to change the twist of the M40 rifles from 1:12 to 1:10….but the 1:9 or 1:8 works better in stabilizing the bullet. Also, with the advancements of the powders today, I’m sure the 175 grain bullet can be pushed faster than 2600 FPS with a BC of .495-.505 respectively. Even the 150gr FMJ can be pushed faster than 2800 FPS. The SFAR does fit the bill quite well. I’ve lived in China and seen their armor, if they get hit with a .308 (7.62x51mm), they are going down. I’ve been hit with an AK bullet and I’m still here to type this… Modern warfare is kind of repeating itself in some ways but has advancements in others. Really if we can get the army choads to improve their 300 yard marksmanship to maybe 500 yards and increase the Marines’ range to 1,000, we would be better suited for warfare in multiple AO’s
@@MountaintravelerEddie regarding "Also, with the advancements of the powders today, I’m sure the 175 grain bullet can be pushed faster than 2600 FPS". Yup. Powders are improving all the time. St Marks Powders makes a lot of current military propellants. They also make the custom ones for Hornady's Superformance loads that boost velocity, Until recently, those wonder-powders were a bit temperature sensitive, though. Their new "StaBALL" powders are much better and give good loading density, so it will be interesting to watch. For the 175 SMK military loads, I seem to recall there was a switch from Reloader 15 to something more temperature stable like IMR 4064 at one point, but that was a long time ago. It wouldn't surprise me if things have changed again.
I have to say it's really nice to use midway i for about them they have much better prices. And one thing about the creedmoor it has a awesome name. It ain't as awesome as the the (277 fury),!, but it is more common to build into an AR ten platform and much least much less expensive. Both guns are barrel burners!!And when you have such powerful guns, it's better to go ahead and get something that's more affordable and common, like the creedmoor. It is an amazing cartridge for a dmr setup Set up that you can make for 6 hundred dollars and you can have a great gun. That has a great range..
Once that Fury hits the 80,000 psi level it’ll be interesting to see if they have to increase the jacket thickness to keep it from disintegrating on impact. But curiously enough if your adversary doesn’t have a rifle that can take that immense pressure it’s one way to keep them from using your ammo I guess. 🤷♂️
Great video but: What were the differences in the projectiles? The 277 left a ragged exit hole like a varmint round, the 6.5 left a clean hole like a target round. What were the grain-weight differences? What were the recoil differences? Without this data, the conclusions can't really be assessed.
What I would love to know is if the 277 in full military power will have barrels and bolts made available for the AR-10 platform. I recently ordered a 308 Winchester barrel, 20" 1:10 twist, for an AR-10 build using the Aero Precision M5E1 upper and lower.
I came to comment how your test of the brass .277 fury as an analogue for the military version, is like trying to compare 9mm vs .357 magnum, but then actually testing against .38spl… then that was literally the next suggested video 😂 9mm vs 38 vs 357
The real thing in the 277 fury is impressive but so is the price and I don't see other countries being stupid enough to adopt it. That means if we ever have to start feeding those guns a steady diet we'll be lucky to get an adequate supply of the brass cased flavor. I think this was an asinine move on the part of the government.
Unless they .277 Fury sells the high pressure variant on the market, I just can't see any reason why someone would choose it over 6.5CM, .308 Win, or 7mm-08. This low pressure variant doesn't do anything that these other cartridges don't. Now if the high pressure one makes it to the civilian market, and performs as well or better than .270 Win...? We might have something that mountain hunters could really be interested in.
They sell the steel base variant.
@@nextlifeonearth I didn't realize they hit the market yet. Do you know anything about them? I'm eager to see if they perform as well as they are touting.
Right. The 277 seems redundant. What can it do that the others can't if you jack all their pressures to 80,000 psi?
This right here.. Manufacturers would also have to put out a product capable of handling the pressure of that high pressure round.
@@JKGuitarPro That steel cartridge is mandatory. I have one test gun with the swollen brass case pushing out the extractor, preventing the bolt from turning. Some companies are already making high pressure bolts.
After watching your 308 vs 277 and this video I'm convinced that these 277 rounds are expanding on impact.
I honestly think that in both tests... the 277 is dumping more energy where it needs too. Thus making it the best at stopping the bad guys. That 6.5 would prob be better against a vehicle.
Yep 277 is hitting fragmentation velocity like a 556 would.
Faster bullet means more explosive fragmentation
Ultimate kill shots
The lumber test suggests that the inner rings of the lumber made the bullets tumble; if you notice closely, there's some keyholing action going on.
The .277 certainly much more velocity behind it, giving it much better penetration at closer ranges. However I'd be interested to see how both rounds perform on target at longer ranges from 100 yds to 1000 yds, as well as a comparison of ballistics, drop, drift, velocities, coefficients, etc. Barrier penetration alone isn't enough to really have an opinion one way or the other, and every cartridge should be evaluated for it's intended situational use. Good video.
For a battle rifle, 500-600 yards is the realistic max useful range.
i.e Armor penetration beyond 300 yards.
@@Sare204 Not sure how long the Fury is overall, but the Creedmore needs to be run through an AR 10 length action.
@@timclaus8313 there are loads of 6.5 creed chambered ARs, it's not really hard to find
@@cypherzer0589 They are readily available, but in the larger AR10 platform built around the 7.62 NATO/308 Winchester, not the AR15 platform.
.277 Fury, simply because it can only go up in performance, based off the case technology.
The tested cartridge is essentially a double underloaded variant of the 6.8x51 which will be used in combat. The brass case variant is technically considered the "Training ammo" whereas the military variant will have improved projectiles, in addition to increased pressure, which requires the Hybrid case design.
100% these test are a very misleading when you aren't using the military bullet construction or velocity. Still fun to casually watch but not worth drawing any conclusions off of.
The steel base two part case is for extra strength for the non training round, the all brass is the down loaded training/civilian ammo. Otherwise you're correct, this was the "wimp" training ammo.
The steel base two part case is for extra strength for the non training round, the all brass is the down loaded training/civilian ammo. Otherwise you're correct, this was the "wimp" training ammo.
It’s unlikely 6.8x51 will ever see combat. It’s one of those great army choices.
@@Sightbain.Not really! Comparing commercial projectiles to penetrators is apples to oranges and would be highly misleading. Further 80k psi is just moronic, have fun with throat erosion degrading your barrel within 500 rounds. It's suspicious that the military hasn't sent a single fury rifle for field testing anywhere.
🇺🇸
I'd like to see the steel base .277 Fury through a 24" barrel. That thing would be screamin!
for sure. The 6.5 Creedmore is living off folk lore.
@@jimellenw Yeah, 6.5CM is an okay cartridge but nothing special. You'd never think that if you listened to all the hype because Hornady has become a marketing master.
That would cause over stabilization and throat erosion.... so no it would be doing worse than it would out of the 14" barrel it was designed for.
@@jimellenwFolklore? Buddy the Creedmoor replaced the 7.62 NATO in all of SOCOMs marksman rifles for a reason. No hold over for elevation at 500 yards, and very little hold over for elevation at 1000 yards. Neither the 7.62mm nor the .277 Fury can boast that.
Answering the important questions we all have. 🙌👍
Awesome video as usual man. The energy dump from the .277 on the first test, 6x6, ply and steel plate, was incredible. Love the content you put out. Quickly becoming one of my favorite guntube channels.
Nice tactical crocs btw 😂😂😂
On the first test an the concrete paver and board. Way more energy cleaner hole an split the wood! And that was a draw. I don't think!
+1 for tactical Crocs. He even had the adventure-strap engaged
Same.
It is too soon to tell if .277 Fury was a mistake for the military as the civilian versions are neutered. They have spec'ed .277 Fury for DMR, designated marksman rifle, and that higher velocity would make it more suitable for longer distance.
This. I understand the need for click-bait titles, but it's really apples and oranges if one is talking about the military procurement decision while testing the civilian version at the much lower pressure then mil spec. Still, a cool video but the results have nothing to do with the stated premise.
@@garycox7508 The US military likes to test a variety of weaponry but they are very slow to adopt. It is why the M16/M4 has been used for almost 70 years, using the same caliber. I am sure they tested the heck out of this new .277 Fury and that it will excel at the mission it is aimed at. On paper, it seems like a winner albeit expensive.
@@crazy8sdrums I don't disagree and I was attempting to agree with your original statement. The test shown in this video is not representative of what the mil-spec ammo will do, thus while entertaining, is basically useless in answering the question of "did the military make a mistake?" I think we are saying basically the same thing...I just wanted to make clear that I wasn't trying to contradict you. The Sig Spear (for one) is available as a civilian version..and full pressure ammo can be purchased to feed it if BB wants to actually answer the question "for realz".
@@garycox7508 Totally cool, neighbor. TBH, I am pretty interested in .277 Fury. 5.56 is too weak for some stuff, and .308 is too much. The .277 should be in between both but with better armor defeating ability and flatter trajectory.
I think BB was kind of latching on to the responses of some of the other gun guys on utubes. There is a lot of skepticism, and even a fair bit of angst about the choice of ammo. 6.5 Grendel seems to have rallied a lot of fanboy support and I think many were rooting for the military to use it too...but were let down when the .277 Fury was chosen.
I am not invested in either, but from how it is on paper, I think I would opt for the .277 Fury.
@@garycox7508 There is also a rumor that the military is going to entirely switch over to .277 Fury for all of their infantry rifles. Unconfirmed rumor...but some hints have been dropped about that.
IMO, that will have a negative impact on the civilian market initially...and it already is affecting 5.56 prices a bit. Lake City has been ordered to retool everything to .277F and stop producing 5.56 for the civilian market. It can be viewed as an attack avenue at the 2a, making it more difficult for civies to feed their scary black rifles.
Be vigilant!
Look at the diameter of the hole in the steel the .277 throws out. That thing has some ENERGY
You aren't kidding. The sand box displays the thump difference
I mean, yeah. It's 6.8 vs 6.5. And, if they had the same bullet caliber we could safely say that one wasted more energy to make bigger hole instead of going deeper.
@@trofchik9488 I don't know about you, but I prefer my bullet energy dumped in the target instead of passing through.
@@WyFoster It's barrier penetration being tested here so, going deeper means better in this case. Terminal performance on flesh? -- Yeah, bigger hole would be better.
@@trofchik9488 right but that 277 velocity allows for a heavier bullet and some steel penetrator action.
Yet another great video, also thanks to Midwayusa for sponsoring you. I have started buying from them some 7.62 X 54 R that I couldn't find anywhere.
That's because it's fighting itself... again.
The .277 looks like it will be better for barrier penetration out of a shorter barrel (especially the high-pressure variant, but with its high ballistic coefficient, the 6.5mm will probably hold up better at longer ranges.
With only a barrel and bolt change, the XM5 can be transformed from a wall-busting fighting rifle to a far-reaching long rifle and back again.
Would be interesting if the bullets fired in the sand medium could be measured and retrieved to compare how far they went and condition of bullet; came apart, stayed straight, etc. Love watching your videos. Appreciate the work. Also like Midway.
Maybe a small shop vac? Slowly vacuum up the sand until a projectile or fragments are uncovered. You may be able to approximate how much penetration was achieved in the sand. With a scale, you could tell how much weight it retained. Then dump the sand back in the box from the vac and test the next round. It would require regular cleaning of the filter in order to maintain enough vacuum and would likely expend some sand each time that would need to be noted and replaced to maintain the same weight/volume of sand in the box.
I don't think you will ever see bullet on this channel go though it. I skip that part of vid every time.
Dude, these are so fun to watch. Fascinating science.
I don't see why they don't just stick with 7.62x51. If pressure is what they're after... steel cased 7.61x51 is the answer. Crank the pressures up and they're on a better place than .277
That would be too logical for the government
Weight
Blasphemy. There are lobbyists, board members, and several former generals that are depending on those taxpayer kickbacks.
Weight and ballistics. The .277 bullets just fly better due to better ballistics.
I personally think they should have went with a straight 7mm bullet at about 170-180gr as they are some of the most efficient bullets out there.
That would be economical. Our government has deep pockets and when they spend more, they can ask for more.
Not to forget the crazy amounts of wear and tear caused in the internals of the firearm by the .277 FURY - means more parts replacement and more purchases to be made over the years - good for business bad for real life conflicts. I’d say 6.5 CM is the better cartridge overall. If penetration becomes an issue for the military, they can easily come up with a steel core/tungsten core variant projectile without having to sacrifice the rifle to higher pressures
The 277 looked like it was tumbling on that first test.
Possible, military want it to tumble for more damage in tissue.
Thanks for another great video. Both are impressive, but I'm leaning to the 277 Fury. It does have the cooler name.
Fury or 300 blackout are the only options with cool names. Pick your poison.
It's a fine test for those rounds tested. However, you would need the military load for the 277 Fury and a load that would have to be developed by the military for the 6.5 Creedmoor to have an accurate representation of which cartridge is capable of penetrating deeper in a given media.
Military load is 6.8×51. Do not ever(assuming you could steal some) shoot it in a rifle marked .277Fury
@@jagx234 Not unless you want a gnarly scar like KentuckyBallistics
80000 psi. Do you know what that means?
@@johnm3907 Yeas, sure do
@frankbrowning328 no civilian rifle can fire that bullet yet.
This isn't even a contest with the military 277 ammo
I am a 260 Remington fan... been around since the late 90's
Easy to make from .243 WIN cases also.
Love your channel!!
Would definitely like to see a 270win vs 6.8 western video. It would be interesting to see how much better the 6.8 western would do. I’m interested in purchasing a 6.8 western but I’m not sold on just hype alone I would like visual data.
The 6.8 western is going to be much more accurate, handle far higher BC bullets, so much less effect from wind and be about the same power level.
Yes, I second this request.
gotta love the range crocs
They created a new cartridge based on a new bullet because they wanted to avoid legal problems - learning from past experience. They started with a projectile design optimized for defeating body armor without having to use tungsten.
Next time I see someone say "lol 6.5 needs more" I'm sending them this video.
Needs to be the full power .277 fury for any of this to matter.. full power ~80,000 psi loads with the steel base.
Waste of time.
On Ron Spoomers channel they are saying the Military lowered it to 70k psi. For better accuracy and barrel life
I feel like the sandbox dimensions should be reduced by maybe 1x1 inch to give a chance for high performance cartridges to penetrate it. Great testing as usual B.B.
Impressed with the 6.5. I didn’t think it would be that close. I hunt with a Grendel and it is impressive for it’s size. The fury does hit hard though.
The hybrid 80k pressure version of 277 fury gets 2900fps out the M7 which has a 13 INCH BARREL......... That us crazy performance for SBR
I don't think I remember anything making it through the sand box. Thanks for this. The 277 Fury is an interesting round.
5.56 has I believe. But that’s a fairly small projectile moving very fast. Have to look at some of his older videos to be certain.
@@smartbull6382 Try loading a 55 gr bullet in a 243. Pushing 4000 fps out of a 22" barrel.
@smartbull6382 really? I'd bet money against it
I love the Creedmoor, it would be a good military cartridge like 6.5 Swede was but we really missed the boat when the US military insisted on 7.62x51 instead of the 7mm Optimum that the Belgians developed for the original version of the FAL rifle. It split the difference between an intermediate and a full power MBR round but still had the long range terminal performance of a MBR.
Ultimately choosing 7.62x51 made NATO step down to 5.56x45 which also made sense but imagine the military surplus if we were going on 70 years of one common ammo and service rifle...
Any way, Creedmoor didn't make sense because 7.62x51 was close enough and already adopted, with guns in the inventory and snipers had bolt action options with even better long range ballistics.
The 277 Fury is an oddball. I would be glad if it found a niche where it excels but I think the state of ground warfare kind of nullifies its advantages. Nobody is going to carry it in the field unless they have a vehicle hauling the ammo because it's not going to be the common caliber. If a sniper wants a ballistic edge, a 338 Lapua Magnum rifle is heavier but hits a lot harder and a 300 Win-Mag is probably comparable in weight and ballistics and also in inventory.
Honestly if we had a breakdown of 5.7x28, 6.8SPC, 6.5 Creedmoor, something like a 7mm Magnum and then 338 Lapua Magnum and .50 BMG, we would have better choices for PDW, Assault Rifle, DMR and various sniper weapon systems.
Maybe "something like a 7mm Magnum" could be a 284 Winchester given the steel case 80ksi treatment shooting a 195 grain bullet. The slight problem with that is it would require close to a .30-06 sized action so something like a MG43 if they wanted it in a machine gun (if that can hold the pressure).
You could 3d print sand filled “plates” of varying thickness to see which rounds go through sand the best?
why when steel plates work better?
@@goodbyemr.anderson5065 because he tests with sand anyways so it would be cool to see the effect of different materials.
I have to say in your style of tests this is the best comparison video so far.
BTW good luck on the Gundies
That could be a new series idea trying steel versions of each cartridge to see if it's any stronger 🤔 or makes any difference
Steel is less dense than lead. To construct a bullet of similar weight to a lead one, the steel bullet would be far longer. The longer bullet would take up more room inside the case for powder, so you'll lose a lot of velocity and risk pressure spikes.
Also a solid steel projectile will be very hard on barrels because steel doesn't deform easily to match the rifling in the barrel. Every shot will start taking material from the rifling with it.
I'm getting thecsig cross rifle in . 277 fury. It's a dynamite round. A sniper round.
Upgrade your gun before anymore .277 furry videos. You are doing a disservice.
lol
Using a weak version of 6.5 also. 2555 fps from a 140 gr is pretty slow. You could easily see 2700-2800 with reloads in a gas gun
Holy crap that was anemic 6.5 CM. We have a 22" 6.5 CM that shoots factory 143 precision hunter at 2665 fps, which is 2255 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. What brand of ammo was this? It is really under-loaded.
I know this is a 20" barrel, but it should still be producing above 2600 fps at the muzzle with a 140 grain pill. Barrel length testing shows typical 6.5 CM loads in the 130-147 range are about 25 fps/inch of barrel. I think a full-power 6.5 CM load will produce 2200--2300 ft-lbs of muzzle energy depending on bullet specifics. You may want to look for a different load (or hand load).
It's the penetration test, not the low-recoil plinking load test :)
It is S&B factory 140 gr fmj. Per the box (whatever barrel length they used) it is rated at 2,657 fps so definitely not as hot as the 143 gr Precision Hunter.
Such a great channel. You didn't want to try 80.000 psi round in your civilian rifle lol. Awesome content Cheers 🍻
What's the point of comparing the two, again?
@@centurione6489 same reason you watched.
@@centurione6489 To make stupid people ask what's the point.
I think the wood block may show why they chose the 277 Fury over the Creedmoor. It looks like the Fury destabilized and tumbled passing through the wood block. This may have translated, during testing, to greater terminal performance in tissue. Since military can't use bullets designed to expand or fragment, one that just happens to tumble in soft tissue is a great advantage.
Technically not a warcrime
@RowbotMaster it's just that it goes against the Hague Convention, which the United States follows
6.5 is a barrel burner, .277 full power is barrel napalm. Hope the military has lots of barrel replacements ready for their new rifles. I love the idea of the .277 for a DMR guy and even a mg guy but the average joe just doesn't need it. It's also pretty funny we convinced nato to adopt the 5.56 so we all use the same ammo, and now were dumping the 5.56.
Of course they do its by design, it's called the military industrial complex.
@@Kinetic.44 Well the prevalence of effective body armor negates much of the advantage of the 5.56 round.
@@timclaus8313 Who has this effective body armor, exactly?
You can't say the military "Made a BIG Mistake" if you're not comparing their new cartridge. All you're confirming is what any .270 Winchester shooter already knows. You would have done better to get your hands on a .270 Weatherby Magnum which pushes a 130gr. bullet at a blistering 3,400 fps, depending on barrel length.
He is also shooting the reduced pressure version because his rifle can't handle full pressure loads.
@@jfess1911 That's my point.
@derekheuring2984 Ok, I wasn't quite sure what you meant.
An advantage of shooting a smaller capacity cartridge like the 277 Fury ay high pressure is with shorter barrels. It does more work in the first few inches of the barrel. Although the Fury's performance essentially matches the larger-capacity 270 WSM with a 24" barrel, it will do much better with a 13 or 16" one.
Consider the following comparison: 556-M855a1 vs 6x45 (6mm-223) with a custom high pressure chambering in a steelhead case (like the military 277 Fury) for allowing a quicker/higher pressure powder.
the 6.5 is super cool, because it just ignores the mere thought of ballistics and is super accurate, but the 277 is a monster
The XM7 is multicaliber anyway and can shoot 7,62;6,8 and 6,5CM. It’s highly possible that it’s for giving the choice in case the .277 is abandoned for 7,62 or military creedmoor. I think the 6,8 was mandatory by the Army, thus SUG couldn’t use the caliber they would have maybe choose. People are talking about 6,8 steel base, but SIG did a complete line up from 5,56 to 7,62 and more of steel based cartridge (it includes 6,5CM). So I believe it might change depending on ongoing issues, military choice, etc. We’ll see what they will prefer to have in the long term. So yeah the pressure and steel base isn’t limited to .277.
But it’s highly possible that like soviet nearly did with 6x49mm. Fully powered intermediate cartridge MCHV might be the futur due to SCHV becoming obsolete.
Would be interesting to see how the military round will do. Could you do 6.5G vs 6mm arc and 6.8spc?
Man!!! I wish you had the 80,000psi rounds and an 18 or 16" barrel system that would work for it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say 1" of mild steel penetration.
Bullet construction would make a big difference. The current military general purpose bullet has a hardened steel tip (think of a bigger, sleeker M855A1 bullet). A lot of practice FMJ bullets have thin jackets and soft cores to cause minimal damage to steel targets.
I wish so as well, though I think 1" is a bit of a stretch unless there was some type of penetrator insert in the projectile
@@bananaballistics Have you seen much difference between bullet types in normal cartridges? Apparently, soft lead is needed for the bond in bonded bullets, but some cup in core hunting bullets use harder lead, for example. I know that WWII-era FMJ used a some lead alloys to increase hardness before they went to steel core. I wonder if that makes much of a difference?
Pretty much the same cartridge if you don't use the HP 277. Looking at numbers it's probably gonna be a barrel burner.
I think the Creedmoor is legally a huge alternative around the globe where military cartridges like the 308 have now been banned for civilian use. It is smart but scary! So now Hornady wants you to buy a weapon that is inferior at all levels for military use or protection. So in America we tend to love are military cartridges they are durable, versatile and accurate. Even canada who runs the F1 Class competition have changed the rules to favor the 6.5 in 1,000 yard competition by banning any 308 cartridge above 155. That is a killer when the 175's are excellent for 1,000 yard competition.
Honestly, they're very close to equal. I think .277 Fury was designed to feed better in AR-style rifles, though, much like .300 Blackout almost exactly mimics 7.62x39 but is more reliable in AR's. And much like 7.62x39, the reliability issues have mostly been fixed at this point. With .277 Fury being adopted as a military cartridge, I think it will eventually surpass 6.5 Creedmoor in popularity.
I really appreciate when you have videos on what I’m researching! Love the videos man informative and straight to the point!
Only if they let us have the REAL 6.8x51
Reading some of the comments. I don’t know if I agree with them. I’m wondering if the 277 is expanding or is it tumbling? It’s a heavier bullet moving around 100 FPS faster. As far as energy dump. Nice
Looks like it tumbled through the plywood and smacked the .25" steel on it's side.
I think in terms of pure horsepower, the 277 has the edge. BUT! The 277 rounds appeared (to me) to be tumbling as they passed through the 6x6 wood, the plywood on the other side looked like the rounds were keyholing and that's why they didn't penetrate the follow-on steel target. So, in terms of overall (and in terms of economics/finding the rounds) I'd say the 6.5 creedmore won.
At least you were up front about using the civilain .277 fury. Once we can get mil rounds it will not even be a comparison. 80,000? Thats just nuts
Clearly the better round is .45-70! *Shakes cane*
What??? I can't hear you! Speak louder, dagnabit!
To be honest, up close, with or without armor, this is definitely a fact lol😂
277 fury probably needs the close to 3000 fps velocity as per its design to get the amount of spin to stabilize it. Lower velocity will result in less spin even in the same twist rate hence it started key-holing in the first test. But the full brass case is the gimped round.
The standard barrel twist for the 277 Fury is one turn in 7 inches, that is plenty fast. A standard 270 is 1 in 10". The 6.8 SPC guys can stabilize 130 grain bullets at slower speeds with a 1 in 11" twist.
@@jfess1911 In my experience (sample size of two) my stock Stag Arms chrome-lined 6.8spc upper groups the Hornady 120gr SSTs in about the size of a dinner plate at 100yds (they weren't key-holing, though). Conversely, it grouped the 90gr Federal Fusion rounds inside 1.5in. I also tried a 1:10 twist chrome-lined barrel left-over from when that was a thing. No joy. It was so strange I built a new upper with a stainless barrel as an experiment, and I had no problem with the heavy SSTs through the stainless barrel. Go figure! So, maybe chrome-lined barrels don't like heavy bullets in this caliber?
@@spencerbookman2523 Some barrels just don't like certain bullets. I wish that there was something smarter to say, but it's true.
The 120 SST load from Hornady is probably the most used ammo in 6.8 SPC-land, largely because it is usually available somewhere and works well for most.
Right now my trusty 308 serves my purpose. If I was to choose right now it would be 6.5 creedmore for price and availability. As the 277 becomes more available and cost comes down i would go 277.
As soon as you said "brass variant" your test premise became invalid. Nobody has laid hands on the military ammo yet, except the military.
WOW i wonder what the US Army 277 FURY would do.....Thanks Banana man....
Old F-4 Phantom 2 fighter pilot Shoe🇺🇸
extra points for the crocs! man after my own heart.
So my first question is why such low velocity out of the 6.5 Creedmoor, granted they usually come out of a 24" barrel but your readings appeared to be several hundred feet slower than I usually see on these test. I mean one would think 2500 ft/sec out of a 20" barrel, what's up.???
The only miscalculated in releasing it to the public is that no one makes a barrel for 80,000 PSI. It was strange too cuz higher pressure wasn’t the thing at the time.
Pretty much any action and barrel that can shoot a 300 WSM can deal with the 277 Fury. The case and bullet are smaller diameters which keep thicker steel walls. For most rifles, the bolt is the weak link. Nevertheless, the bolt thrust of the 277 Fury is still less than the WSM's and about the same as the 6.5 PRC.
Not looking good?
Looks to me like the .277 expenened most of its energy on the wood which for me means its better than the 6.5 that just continued on through.
The .277 looks like it has way more thump than the 6.5 on the target.
So what you’re saying is 308 is king?
They are neck and neck. I’d bet the Creedmoor advantage is the higher BC giving it better penetration at comparatively lower velocities. I’d be curious to see the effect on gel or animals.
Seems like comparing 6.8 spc and 6.5 grendel. They end up performing almost exactly the same because at a certain energy level BC wins over muzzle velocity
Yes, the 6.8x51 was built around the bullet supplied by the Army. The 6.5 Creedmoor was designed as a 1000 yard target round and can use sleeker bullets with longer ogives. The case capacity of the 6.8x51 is greater, so even though both are loaded to about the same pressure in this test, the 6.8 has more velocity.
You’re to only guy that make Crocs look cool! 😂
really dig your channel dude, youre going to be going places on YT. keep it up.
Hey! I have a question - are you running the Moriarti Arms AR10 upper (277 fury)? They claim on their website that it's rated for the Sig Hybrid Ammo, which is 80,000 psi of pressure, but I cannot find any BCG's rated for that, and communication from them is horrible.
My man is rockin' the Combat Crocs...strong move if I say so myself.
Awesome test and great channel you have here good sir.
You gotta make a duct tape handle for your box 'O sand. You could also borrow the guitar riff from Alice in Chains as an intro lick for the Saaaaaannndd In the BOX.
Do a distance test.. 500yd on the 3/8 mild steel.. I'm guessing the fury will be better, with more velocity. But I have a 6.5cm db and love it..
I bet the fmj for the 6.8 fury is target bullets and not the ball ammo used by military
Love the video. Also this new barrier testing versus is a great idea.
If i remember correctly you mentioned in a video you were in TN? So if you ever want to bring out some of my 'fun' rifles it would be a short drive. Shoot me a message if you're interested!
10:17 IT'S TIME TO GRAAAIIINNND!
Since the .277 seems to be expanding while still penetrating it seems like that would translate to a bigger hole and more transferred energy on target post barrier penetration.
The power and velocity difference is not really surprising when you consider, larger bore diameter and combination with a lighter projectile weight for the .277 vs the 6.5 (.264) with a little more space in the bore for a better powder burn, and being a few grains less, you will see velocity increases. This can also be observed with .308 vs 6.5.. it's kind of in a oddball size range and powder capacity that it's potential for velocity is kinda low by comparison with a lot of other cartridges. But 6.5 is more efficient. The case lasts longer, and it uses less powder.
the neon banana steals the show
Not exactly a fair test for the 6.5 creedmore. Those rounds are loaded very low. The 6.5 creed can easily send a 140gn projectile downrange with a muzzle velocity of 2850fps.
6.8x51mm is similar to the 7.62x51mm
The .308 (7.62) parent case necked down…. 0.82 mm difference in diameter from the .277 -or-
308
-277
= 031 mm difference
So…..just me, but wouldn’t it be better to make a bi-metal case for the .308 for ease of use?
I’ve used the 7.62 quite a bit in my long long military career.
The case shape is "improved", so not just a neck down. Less case taper, a sharper shoulder that is moved foreward and, consequently, a shorter neck. The Army's goal was a longer ranged, significantly lighter round. They wanted 300 Win Mag trajectory and significantly better body armor defeat than 7.62x51. Somehow they decided on a .277" bullet. The Army designed the bullet and told the NGSW competitors the velocity they wanted and weapon length they wanted it in (it appears they eventually backed down the original velocity spec somewhat). The SIG candidate won the NGSW competition, but had by far the heaviest cartridge. When SIG claims a weight reduction, they sometimes compare against a 270 WSM, not 7.62x51. They use terms like "equivalent power cartridge", if you look closely.
The Army wanted a suppressed rifle with a relatively short OAL. One of the NGSW candidates had a lighter polymer cartridge that ran at normal pressures but needed a bullpup configuration to get long enough barrel to meet the velocity spec. SIG went with a standard configuration rifle but needed a shorter barrel to meet the length spec. That's how we got 80,000 psi and a strong but heavy case.
Sticking with 7.61x51 but with a higher pressure is indeed an option but comes with its own problems. A high pressure 7.62x51 would also require new or modified weapons but could not easily match the BC and trajectory of the 6.8x51. To match the long range trajectory of the 6.8x51 (without a redesign to use a longer-ogived bullet) the high-pressure 7.62 would need a heavier bullet and produce close to 300 Win Mag levels of recoil.
To reduce bullet weight (and recoil) somewhat, a bullet with a longer, sleeker ogive could be used. Unfortunately, the designs of the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 limit them to bullets with relatively short ogives and mediocre BC's. Using longer, sleeker bullets in either would require reducing case length (and reducing powder capacity) or just going with longer bullets that would no longer fit in existing weapons.
@@jfess1911 ohh K, so my Mk-39 I used in Iraq…..I can shoot at 1,000 meters with the 175 gr AB-39 and have no barrels to replace and still took the target out
The same in Syria & Afghanistan.
So basically the .308 (7.62x51 mm) / 7mm-08 and the .277 Fury aka 6.8x51 mm are all based upon the same brass. Near the same BC. To me, the testing we did in Hawthorne when I was stationed at MWTC Bridgeport showed not much difference in performance. We aren’t civilian hunters….or shooters. This was Marine Corps testing and there were some army choads there too, but….thats where I got my hands on the plastic .308 ammo with the steel base.
Anyways, it just sounds like more marketing hype because civvies want what the US military uses. What better way to make money…..sell it to the military. Just glad I retired when I did. Honestly, I’m still shooting milk jugs at 1,000 with a .308 like it’s cool with 35 mph winds. Oh, and it’s still got punch at a mile as well…..still shooting my M40A5 and Mk-22 MRAD in .308 that far.
Just my .02 cents
@@MountaintravelerEddie I'm impressed. Seriously.
I am not so certain that the 6.8x51 is the greatest idea. The Army was hoping for a breakthrough: better than 7.62x51 performance with lightweight ammo and a weapon the weight and the size of an M4. It didn't turn out that way.
Once the Army made the shift to lead free bullets with steel penetrators (M80A1) the long range performance of 7.62x51 went down the tubes. They also kept shifting to shorter barrels and dropping velocity.
They got worried when they saw decent body armor showing up in places like Syria and realized the M4 would soon have problems with penetration in a lot of theaters. Not many soldiers have your capability to shoot around the body armor.
The current idea is to give every soldier a weapon that can deal with US-grade body armor...and have the longe range of your Mk-39... in a shorter weapon that also has a suppressor... and an optic that will automatically give them correct elevation but not windage.... and expect them to hit at extended ranges with non-match-grade EPR-style ammo. It is an overreach.
FWIW, there is actually two potential markets for hunters with the 277 Fury, though. The first is for hunters who want 270 Win performance from a handy 16" barrel + suppressor setup.
The second is for hunters who usually hunt deer at shorter ranges but occasionally need a longer ranged rifle or want to hunt bigger game. They can use the less expensive low pressure ammo most of the time and only use the expensive high-pressure stuff for those special trips.
@@jfess1911 yeah that’s true, civvies can use it, but for hunting applications, there is a plethora of calibers already available.
Of course some people want a small lightweight weapon that will shoot a larger bullet with more punch, it took the Marine Corps a long time to change the twist of the M40 rifles from 1:12 to 1:10….but the 1:9 or 1:8 works better in stabilizing the bullet. Also, with the advancements of the powders today, I’m sure the 175 grain bullet can be pushed faster than 2600 FPS with a BC of .495-.505 respectively. Even the 150gr FMJ can be pushed faster than 2800 FPS. The SFAR does fit the bill quite well.
I’ve lived in China and seen their armor, if they get hit with a .308 (7.62x51mm), they are going down. I’ve been hit with an AK bullet and I’m still here to type this…
Modern warfare is kind of repeating itself in some ways but has advancements in others. Really if we can get the army choads to improve their 300 yard marksmanship to maybe 500 yards and increase the Marines’ range to 1,000, we would be better suited for warfare in multiple AO’s
@@MountaintravelerEddie regarding "Also, with the advancements of the powders today, I’m sure the 175 grain bullet can be pushed faster than 2600 FPS".
Yup. Powders are improving all the time. St Marks Powders makes a lot of current military propellants. They also make the custom ones for Hornady's Superformance loads that boost velocity, Until recently, those wonder-powders were a bit temperature sensitive, though. Their new "StaBALL" powders are much better and give good loading density, so it will be interesting to watch.
For the 175 SMK military loads, I seem to recall there was a switch from Reloader 15 to something more temperature stable like IMR 4064 at one point, but that was a long time ago. It wouldn't surprise me if things have changed again.
Rounds with sharp shoulders feed less reliably in semi-auto and auto modes. This is where the 7.62 has the advantage.
You should make a plexiglass shield for your cameras
Lexan.
I know. I lost 2 cases within several of the upcoming videos
277 looked like it was tumbling through the wood. Not bad if you’re looking for wounding capability
It would be nice to know the specific brand/load for your test rounds.
@cavemanjeff4251 It's in the comments: 277 FURY: SIG 135 gr FMJ
6.5 Creed: S&B 140 gr FMJ
@@ClinttheGreat ok, thank you much
The real deciding factor:
6.5 Creedmoor: ~$.90/rnd
.227 Fury: ~$1.22/rnd
Both are too expensive for me. Hell I haven't even bought 5.56 since 2019 and I barely ever shoot any more because prices are too high
I have to say it's really nice to use midway i for about them they have much better prices. And one thing about the creedmoor it has a awesome name. It ain't as awesome as the the (277 fury),!, but it is more common to build into an AR ten platform and much least much less expensive. Both guns are barrel burners!!And when you have such powerful guns, it's better to go ahead and get something that's more affordable and common, like the creedmoor. It is an amazing cartridge for a dmr setup Set up that you can make for 6 hundred dollars and you can have a great gun. That has a great range..
Once that Fury hits the 80,000 psi level it’ll be interesting to see if they have to increase the jacket thickness to keep it from disintegrating on impact. But curiously enough if your adversary doesn’t have a rifle that can take that immense pressure it’s one way to keep them from using your ammo I guess. 🤷♂️
With that velocity... makes me think that 277 might be a nice low recoil hunting round in the future.
The hybrid 277 case has the same energy in 16 inch barrels that 308 needs 24 inch barrels
Great video but:
What were the differences in the projectiles?
The 277 left a ragged exit hole like a varmint round, the 6.5 left a clean hole like a target round.
What were the grain-weight differences?
What were the recoil differences?
Without this data, the conclusions can't really be assessed.
Miss Creedmoor's wish is my command! Liked! ;3
There is an interview with a rep for sig that says the 6.8 is capable of 120k psi.
Fantastic channel, great and helpful info, really enjoy, thanks
You sir need a range mallet :D
I'm having an epiphany; Unisled needs a turntable!
Hello... enjoy your videos... you need to grind that stand and cold blue it so it won't rust that much....
What I would love to know is if the 277 in full military power will have barrels and bolts made available for the AR-10 platform. I recently ordered a 308 Winchester barrel, 20" 1:10 twist, for an AR-10 build using the Aero Precision M5E1 upper and lower.
I came to comment how your test of the brass .277 fury as an analogue for the military version, is like trying to compare 9mm vs .357 magnum, but then actually testing against .38spl… then that was literally the next suggested video 😂 9mm vs 38 vs 357
It would be tedious, but, with the sand trap you could dig through and find out which bullet went furthest.