Guns & Outdoors Forum

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:27 pm**

.277 furry. I like that name..

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:30 pm**

Just rehashing an idea that should have been adopted in 1930........

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:31 pm**

Centermass wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 9:16 pm the Army round is also called the .277 Fury. It is 6.8 x51

If I remember, the 6.8spc is 6.8 x 43

The difference is about 500Fps, in favor of the furry. So, essentially, we figured out a way to throw a 6.8mm round at the same velocity of the 5.56…

Yeah, they do that by running it an the INSANE pressure of 80,000 PSI

Posted: **Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:48 pm**

breamfisher wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 11:27 pm .277 furry. I like that name..

Hear me out.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 1:17 am**

You sure purple is an appropriate color?

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 2:24 am**

In addition to the 14 pound weight, the expense is just not happening for the military. It's a costly rifle, and even if all the goodies aren't on the field rifle, it's still expensive and probably the US would have to go it alone in NATO, since those governments are as poor as we are. Viva M 4!

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 2:45 am**

Gene, how many times must Centermass tell you IT IS NOT A 14# RIFLE.

8.4 for the M4 replacement and 12.x for the replacement for the 18# SAW

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 4:28 am**

The XM7 weighs about 8.4 pounds, slightly heavier than the M4, which typically weighs about 7.3 pounds. The XM250 is about 12 pounds, significantly lighter than the SAW, which weighs approximately 18.

From CM's link
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/new-army-rifle-photos/

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 4:45 am**

The 8 pound rifle is a civilian rifle with a civilian barrel, no optic, no suppressor. The military rifle has a much heavier barrel. I didn't make up the 14 pound weight, Ian on Forgotten Weapons did a test of the rifle. He knows guns more than me, and I trust his word.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 4:48 am**

breamfisher wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 1:17 am You sure purple is an appropriate color?

Since it's a 0.277" bullet, YES, yes it is

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:41 am**

I was thinking more of a rainbow. Fucia, chartreuse, neon orange, turquoise, lavender...

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:48 am**

Suppressor is supposed to add a pound. Dunno how heavy the optic is.

I wonder what an M4 with suppressor, optic, and infrared designator weighs?

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 1:41 pm**

breamfisher wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:48 am Suppressor is supposed to add a pound. Dunno how heavy the optic is.

I wonder what an M4 with suppressor, optic, and infrared designator weighs?

M-4 is right at 7 1/2 lbs empty

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 2:05 pm**

I know that. But you throw on a suppressor, PEQ, and an LPVO and the weight goes to????

According to Vortex, their new LPVO for the XM57 is "lighter" than similarly outfitted optics. And the XM7 is 8.38 lb. bare, 9.84 with a suppressor. So... where's the extra 4 lbs. coming form? The optic?

Something ain't adding up, at least to me.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 2:58 pm**

Gene L wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 4:45 am The 8 pound rifle is a civilian rifle with a civilian barrel, no optic, no suppressor. The military rifle has a much heavier barrel. I didn't make up the 14 pound weight, Ian on Forgotten Weapons did a test of the rifle. He knows guns more than me, and I trust his word.

Maybe he got his info wrong….
Maybe it’s a conspiracy…..
Maybe the Russians put that info in your head with laser beams.
Maybe your cheese has slipped off your cracker.

Regardless, the US military doesn’t care what you think about how much it weighs, and will do what they want.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 6:38 pm**

You're wrong, CPJ about the military not caring about what I think. Actually, I'm pretty much in charge of all new weapons acceptances. Which means I won't pass the heavy-ass rifle in the armed forces unless they drop down the mass.

Posted: **Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:49 pm**

I dunno why I am doing this - I feel I am being baited. And, in the end it doesn’t really matter what you think.

But, I know you have the wherewithal to compare apples to apples
The M4A1 is 7.6 pounds. That is before I add my optic, my peq, my light, and possibly the SOCOM 300. After that, I am possibly 11 pounds.

The XM7 is the same way. “Dry weight” if you will, is 8.2 pounds. With the suppressor it is 9.6 pounds. After peq, light, optic.. you are most likely at 12 pounds.

What I don’t understand, is why it matters. What the hell is wrong with a heavy rifle.

If I am free flow in a building, go bolt lock/malfuntion, and don’t have time or space to transition, I want a rifle that push someone’s nose to the back of their skull as a butt stroke them and continue through the room.

I believe folks wrapped around the axel about weight of the rifle are stuck in a combat context that is no longer applicable to the way fight or plan to fight future enemies…

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:30 am**

breamfisher wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 2:05 pm I know that. But you throw on a suppressor, PEQ, and an LPVO and the weight goes to????

According to Vortex, their new LPVO for the XM57 is "lighter" than similarly outfitted optics. And the XM7 is 8.38 lb. bare, 9.84 with a suppressor. So... where's the extra 4 lbs. coming form? The optic?

Something ain't adding up, at least to me.

My Trijicon LPVO weighs 25.6 oz. which would be almost half of that weight. I would think a VCOG would weigh a little more.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 2:12 am**

Centermass wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:49 pm I dunno why I am doing this - I feel I am being baited. And, in the end it doesn’t really matter what you think.

But, I know you have the wherewithal to compare apples to apples
The M4A1 is 7.6 pounds. That is before I add my optic, my peq, my light, and possibly the SOCOM 300. After that, I am possibly 11 pounds.

The XM7 is the same way. “Dry weight” if you will, is 8.2 pounds. With the suppressor it is 9.6 pounds. After peq, light, optic.. you are most likely at 12 pounds.

What I don’t understand, is why it matters. What the hell is wrong with a heavy rifle.

If I am free flow in a building, go bolt lock/malfuntion, and don’t have time or space to transition, I want a rifle that push someone’s nose to the back of their skull as a butt stroke them and continue through the room.

I believe folks wrapped around the axel about weight of the rifle are stuck in a combat context that is no longer applicable to the way fight or plan to fight future enemies…

IIRC Gene carried a M14 around SE Asia. That's bound to stick in your craw.

First 12 mile road march I did at Richardson I had to carry the M-60 tripod. By mile 8 I would have sworn it weighed 50#.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:38 am**

Centermass wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:49 pm I believe folks wrapped around the axel about weight of the rifle are stuck in a combat context that is no longer applicable to the way fight or plan to fight future enemies…

I'm definitely in this camp, and will admit my bias. I had run with Gene's number, 12 pounds kitted out seems a whole lot more reasonable.

Ultimately, it will be you and your men using it, not Gene or myself, so I'm happy that the end user is getting equipment that he views as an improvement.

Do you have any thoughts on the lesser combat load, i.e 170 vs. 210.
Being crudely reductionist on it, it's a 20% reduction in firepower.
Given the stats around round count to dead enemy across major conflicts (as poor a metric as we know that is), do you anticipate a return to greater marksmanship emphasis?

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:45 pm**

I carried an M 16 A 1 in SE Asia. Weighed about six or seven pounds. It was a Hydromatic General Motors rifle. As for weight, a civilian M 4 weighs about five or six pounds. A M 4 military rifle weighs about 8 pounds according to an above post. So you see how much weight is added to a military gun.

What's wrong with a heavy rifle ??? Toting around 14 pound rifle or even a 12 pound rifle and personal gear like MREs and ammo for the machine gun ammo and other munitions like Claymores and frag grenades (we carried 3 frags and one smoke) over the GI's ;personal load of rifle ammo and various personal items. Probably about 60 pounds over the rifle. GIs aren't going to tote around a lot of weight gladly.

So the thinking apparently is very mobile infantry that gets carried to the battle field by chopper or trucks. I think that's in the future but not the immediate future.

Posted: **Fri Nov 10, 2023 3:52 pm**

That weight Diver posted is for an M4 without an optic, suppressor, or IR designator /iluminator.

The stuff that adds weight to the new rifle. Which you keep repeating for the SIG, but not mentioning for a modern M4.

If you're going to discuss something, do it honestly and on equal terms if you want an honest discussion.

I went to public school in Florida and even there, they taught me this basic rule.

Posted: **Wed Dec 06, 2023 5:33 pm**

Waipapa13 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:38 am
Centermass wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:49 pm I believe folks wrapped around the axel about weight of the rifle are stuck in a combat context that is no longer applicable to the way fight or plan to fight future enemies…
I'm definitely in this camp, and will admit my bias. I had run with Gene's number, 12 pounds kitted out seems a whole lot more reasonable.

Ultimately, it will be you and your men using it, not Gene or myself, so I'm happy that the end user is getting equipment that he views as an improvement.

Do you have any thoughts on the lesser combat load, i.e 170 vs. 210.
Being crudely reductionist on it, it's a 20% reduction in firepower.
Given the stats around round count to dead enemy across major conflicts (as poor a metric as we know that is), do you anticipate a return to greater marksmanship emphasis?

Sorry for the late response. Been very busy lately.

I’m okay with 170 vs 210. You’re gonna carry what you carry, for what the mission needs. I can’t remember a single time I carried 210 in combat. I always had extra mags in the truck, in my pack..etc. some missions, it was VDO with three mags for a quick hit, and then back to the vehicle at the extraction side.
The idea of folks being on the march or in the bush without resupply is kinda a thing of the past. We will have exceptions, but as long as we have reliable and redundant LOCs, those instances will be exceptions and not the rule…

They caveat to the above is that we need to go back to teaching fire control… we can’t do the fire blossoms troops became so fond of in the middle of GWOT.

Posted: **Sat Dec 09, 2023 10:48 pm**

Another weight addition would be the bipod. And the magazine. They add up, even though a bipod for an M 4 is absurd, for a heavy rifle could be needed. I think the infantry will always be on foot once they get to the area of combat. That's the way it worked in the sand box. Infantry can go where vehicles can't, and always will. There's always a way to reduce weight, but that idea can only go so far. Forgotten Weapons tested the XM7 with everything on it. I believe he said the suppressor wasn't for practice and qualification, although I feel you should shoot what you carry.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2023 6:24 pm**

How many patrols did you go on, in GWOT, where you went where a vehicle couldn’t?

Guns & Outdoors Forum

M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here

Re: M 16 fan here