Thread: New .27 calibre, .277 Fury..

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

Originally Posted by RUMPY

I have to agree @grandpamac. How many cartridges does the world need, the ones made 100 years ago still kill things dead.

So we should all use .303s and disown anything new because 303 will kill things dead....? Ha
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.

Originally Posted by RUMPY

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?

Its not the new normal it IS NORMAL!

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.....

Originally Posted by grandpamac

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Spitfire

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.
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.

Originally Posted by Friwi

It is fairly lightweight rifle for something entirely made of metal.

Are there any other hunting rifles with an aluminium receiver ?

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 !

Originally Posted by Bagheera

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.

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.