• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

New 277 Fury

I am happy that the men and women we send to fight our battles (that's' another subject though) are being provided the most current and most effective weapons.

The cost of these projects however is always surprising to me. Of course there's a lot more than just guns we're paying for. I know, or I assume anyway, there's spare parts and technical support over the life of the weapons. In the initial 20 million contract for 40 weapons there's developmental costs as well but these should be recouped in the larger contract for as many as 250,000 weapons.

If I'm reading this correctly, the initial contract cost per piece will be five hundred thousand bucks. Again, per weapon. OK, development costs and all that.

The total contract for up to 4.7 billion and as many as two hundred fifty thousand weapons, figures out to be 18,800.00 per piece.

So the whole project, the initial 40 guns and the follow-on 250,000 has an average cost per weapon of 259,400.00. It would be safe to call it 260K per piece and I think that would turn out to be conservative.

It just doesn't seem to me it should cost that much.

edit 04/27/2022: rereading the article, I think it may be saying the 18,800.00 per weapon MAY include the initial 40, the ones I ascribed a 500K price tag too. It's unclear, I think.
 
Last edited:
AccelR8 said:
I am happy that the men and women we send to fight our battles (that's' another subject though) are being provided the most current and most effective weapons.

The cost of these projects however is always surprising to me. Of course there's a lot more than just guns we're paying for. I know, or I assume anyway, there's spare parts and technical support over the life of the weapons. In the initial 20 million contract for 40 weapons there's developmental costs as well but these should be recouped in the larger contract for as many as 250,000 weapons.

If I'm reading this correctly, the initial contract cost per piece will be five hundred thousand bucks. Again, per weapon. OK, development costs and all that.

The total contract for up to 4.7 billion and as many as two hundred fifty thousand weapons, figures out to be 18,800.00 per piece.

So the whole project, the initial 40 guns and the follow-on 250,000 has an average cost per weapon of 259,400.00. It would be safe to call it 260K per piece and I think that would turn out to be conservative.

It just doesn't seem to me it should cost that much.
Click to expand...
pork...
 
AccelR8 said:
I am happy that the men and women we send to fight our battles (that's' another subject though) are being provided the most current and most effective weapons.

The cost of these projects however is always surprising to me. Of course there's a lot more than just guns we're paying for. I know, or I assume anyway, there's spare parts and technical support over the life of the weapons. In the initial 20 million contract for 40 weapons there's developmental costs as well but these should be recouped in the larger contract for as many as 250,000 weapons.

If I'm reading this correctly, the initial contract cost per piece will be five hundred thousand bucks. Again, per weapon. OK, development costs and all that.

The total contract for up to 4.7 billion and as many as two hundred fifty thousand weapons, figures out to be 18,800.00 per piece.

So the whole project, the initial 40 guns and the follow-on 250,000 has an average cost per weapon of 259,400.00. It would be safe to call it 260K per piece and I think that would turn out to be conservative.

It just doesn't seem to me it should cost that much.
Click to expand...
It looks a 270-308? That goes back to wildcats of the 60s.

Steel bases on brass cases? Another resurrected idea from the 30s with (maybe?) slightly improved materials.

Color me unimpressed. What's old is new? Millions of $$ to pay somebody to read thru old gun books & reinvent the wheel. What will they think of next? Frontal ignition? Damn! I need a job like that.
 
I have to question the sudden change to a system that will lend itself to a much higher maintenance- just due to barrel wear alone. I would imagine that with such high operating pressure, it will be half the barrel life of the standard 7.62x51. Maybe i'm wrong but I would almost bet a politician has the barrel makers in their portfolio ; )
Dan
 
SeabeeKen said:
I would have thought 6 or 6.5. I'm curious how they bonded the steel head to the brass body of the ammo.
Click to expand...
I don't know but I bet the case head is attached to the body in some sort of mechanical way such as a crimp, a swage, or threads, and designed such that the firing pressure pushes the two parts together rather than apart.
 
I am glad they picked 277cal. For one .277 represents an area that is good but not great in any given category thus capable of lots of different roles but not really excellent at any of them, just an all around versatile caliber. Secondly 6mm and 6.5 components are hard enough to find already without the military gathering it all up. Just my thoughts.
 
dantiff2 said:
I have to question the sudden change to a system that will lend itself to a much higher maintenance- just due to barrel wear alone. I would imagine that with such high operating pressure, it will be half the barrel life of the standard 7.62x51. Maybe i'm wrong but I would almost bet a politician has the barrel makers in their portfolio ; )
Dan
Click to expand...
We were talking about barrel wear at work today and my shop works on alot of the small arms the Army uses for training. We just can't wait to see how many barrels we have to replace in a years time, currently the FN barrels used on the M4's last about 20,000 rounds and the Privates shoot alot. The machine guns on the other hand will have to have barrels changed more often due to them most likely heating up faster and will have to see how that works out. Should be retired before we even start to see them where I work :)
 
okie said:
pork...
Click to expand...
No pork....it includes the ammo! I understand excessive costs now...LoL

“It also buys enough ammunition for the Army and Sig Sauer to develop and establish production of the rifle in sufficient quantities for fielding”
 
I look at it this way....We should be getting 7.62 x 51 surplus on the market when this gets ramped up. The brass cased round will be another good option for the short actioned rifles.
 
Think of the wildcats....

22-6.8x51
6mm-6.8x51
25-6.8x51
7mm-6.8x51
308-6.8x51
8mm-6.8x51
338-6.8x51
35-6.8x51

Can you do a 17 or 20 on this casing?
 
I'm curious to see if there will be any additional wear on the firing mechanisms due to the stainless steel case head- such as broken extractors and bolt face wear.
Will this be a candidate for the new polymer case that is now offered in 5.56, 7.62x51 and 50 BMG?

Dan
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
165,445
Messages
2,195,294
Members
78,883
Latest member
FIDI_G

Share This Page

Back
Top