Comments by "Indexer" (@PassivePortfolios) on "Garand Thumb" channel.

  1. The 277 Fury is in hold right now pending more durability testing of the rifles. Some of the brass does not like it because it is too much like the M-14 story - ammo too powerful and heavy which makes the rifle heavy. It might replace the 7.62 round but not the 5.56, but it's anyone's guess as to what the brass will decide.
    149
  2.  @nelsonlanglois9104  the 45 ACP was invented as a replacement to the Colt 45 which was adopted because it could put cavalry horses down. The DOD switched to 9 mm for ammo commonality within NATO. The M-14 was a failure in Vietnam and lessons were learned from that failure, which resulted in the adoption of the M-16. The 50 MBG "Ma Deuce" is still in service because it does not have to be carried around by an infantry grunt, and there is nothing better to replace it.
    38
  3. I seriously doubt the 277 Fury will go anywhere except maybe as a sniper round. As for infantry, it will fail for the same reasons the M-14 failed. Some people at the top forgot the lessons of Vietnam.
    24
  4.  @SlearBlaneheart  Corruption at the DOD?! Retired generals as lobbyists?! The infantry guys should be evaluating this stuff not the REMFs.
    23
  5.  @MrRedFox13Gaming  hunting rifle rounds and military rounds are apples and oranges comparison.
    7
  6.  @Hungry_God  the decision to drop the 7.62 in favor of the 5.56, a smaller, lighter round was well thought out. It was and is a good compromise between range, weight, recoil, capacity and stopping power. This was confirmed in numerous battles. Russia came to the same conclusion. The 277 Fury is going back to the 7.62/M-14 days, which did not work out. The same issues the 7.62 had will be the issues the 277 Fury will have in battle, and it will be axed for the same reasons.
    6
  7.  @zack9912000  the FBI uses JHP ammo and confirmed the Marshall and Sanow Definitive Study that there was no significant difference between 9 mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP stopping power. The 9 mm has the advantage of higher capacity and faster follow-up shots. Also, agents shot it more accurately.
    4
  8. What a beautiful classic ! And it's great for home defense !
    4
  9.  @Animo2006  well said. If the brass has any brains it will relegate the 277 Fury to snipers.
    4
  10.  @Klovaneer  my brother was in Afghanistan. The 50 BMG was highly valued for counter-sniper fire.
    3
  11.  @23rdMS_Inf  556 was the right answer at the right time. that's why it is still around today.
    2
  12.  @larzakalazerath6655  it doesn't matte what you and I like, what matters is what works the best in a defensive situation - penetration and expansion. Lighter bullets expand more reliably and meet the FBI test guidelines. The FBI put a lot of resources into the testing, a lot more than anyone on YouTube or what you and I can do on our own.
    2
  13.  @larzakalazerath6655  the FBI made some mistakes but adjusted and corrected itself when the decisions it made did not work with its agents. You can't cherry pick the FBI's old decisions which you like. The FBI did extensive testing and went with with what works today, with modern guns and ammo. It is no surprise that most of the LEO agencies in the US use the FBI standards when it comes to ammo selection, shoot ability and stopping power.
    2
  14.  @larzakalazerath6655  you just proved my point - the 10 mm and 40 S&W were too hard to qualify so the FBI switched to 9 mm. Secondly, 9 mm ammo tech improved significantly. The FBI does not care about the cost of ammo but most LEO agencies do, so they also adopted the 9 mm. But all that is academic at this point because the 9 mm dominates federal, state and local agencies.
    2
  15.  @tristanholland6445  - that's a myth. The 30 carbine ammo had no such cold temp problems any more than other ammo.
    2
  16.  @PJDAltamirus0425  all that stuff is pie in the sky fantasy because of the conversion costs. While the 277 Fury might make a difference in some limited scenarios, it is not worth the cost and other drawbacks which outweigh the body armor penetration,
    2
  17.  @WillyK51  someone is looking for a payoff that's for sure. The 277 Fury will fail for the same reasons the M-14 failed. The lessons of the past have been forgotten. 277 Fury is more of specialized sniper round than general purpose round such as the 5.56.
    1
  18.  @larzakalazerath6655  my former agency required 3 days of qualification and tactical shooing a year. There was a range day every month where you can practice with agency ammo but it was unpaid time. If you showed up for training on your own time, you can qualify as many times as you wanted as long as the in service class was not too big. The instructors were former Marines and Army mostly, 45 ACP fanboys. They hated the 38 Special and later on the 9 mm, so we ended up with the 45 ACP. Currently there is pressure to go back to 9 mm, although qualifications with the G21 are nearly 100%.
    1
  19.  @panavgaming1050  they ditched the drum nags for stick mags because they were more reliable feeders and more practical for carry.
    1
  20. I have one a relative brought back from Vietnam but I can't find ammo for it or reloading supplies. Can anyone help?
    1
  21. Have you guys fired the 6 mm ARC at 1k yards to check the accuracy from a standard battle rifle ?
    1
  22.  @granatmof  Afghanistan ambushes required heavier weapons than small arms, such as 50 BMG, mortars, artillery and air support when small arms were not enough. The 277 Fury is a sniper round to replace the 7.62 but it is not as good as the 300 Win. mag. Or is it? It is not an infantry round to replace the 5.56, not practical in many ways.
    1
  23.  @mckendrick7672  Anyone who has been in infantry can vouch that a lightweight weapon and ammo is a big plus when it has to be carried in the field. So it becomes a compromise between portable weight and stopping power/range. Several studies found that war engagements with infantry rifles are mostly under 300 yards. At that range, any military caliber from WW1 to present will work just fine. The 5.56 was created because it is effective at that range and beyond, and is easier to carry a lot of rounds. These huge advantages negate the bullet resistant vest under-penetration issues.
    1
  24.  @mckendrick7672  - you made some good points. Thanks for replying. The short barrel M-4 is a mistake in my opinion, because it reduced the 5.56 trajectory which was designed for a 20" barrel. Other studies indicated that only about 10-15% of the casualties are due to rifle fire, the rest due to artillery, mines, IEDs, bombs and missiles. So the infantry rifle being able to penetrate bullet resistant vests is a small factor in the overall picture.
    1
  25.  @roguemodel  you should study the history and find out why the DOD made certain decisions regarding the M-14, M-1 Carbine and M-16.
    1