277 FURY vs 6.5 Creedmoor: Mistakes Were Made! 

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.

Technically not a warcrime

​@RowbotMaster it's just that it goes against the Hague Convention, which the United States follows

Lexan.

I know. I lost 2 cases within several of the upcoming videos

Ammoseek shows several sources with the low-pressure 277 Fury ammo used here at about $24.50 per box. The low-pressure 130 grain hunting ammo is closer to $30/box. The high-pressure hunting ammo is more like $55/box. It's actually much cheaper than the comparable and rare 270 WSM and about the same as the more available 300 WSM.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

What's the point of comparing the two, again?

@@centurione6489 same reason you watched.

@@centurione6489 To make stupid people ask what's the point.

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.

That's because it's fighting itself... again.

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.

Waste of time.

On Ron Spoomers channel they are saying the Military lowered it to 70k psi. For better accuracy and barrel life

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.

Possible, military want it to tumble for more damage in tissue.

Looks like it tumbled through the plywood and smacked the .25" steel on it's side.

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.

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.

The level of fuddery is unreal.

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?

Fury or 300 blackout are the only options with cool names. Pick your poison.

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.

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.

Upgrade your gun before anymore .277 furry videos. You are doing a disservice.

lol

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?

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.

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.

What??? I can't hear you! Speak louder, dagnabit!

To be honest, up close, with or without armor, this is definitely a fact lol😂

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.

Sometime in 2024 if I had to guess. I think you're right

@@bananaballistics The 10mm and 357 should be pretty darn close to each other.

@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