New Sig Cross Chassis Based 6.5lb Rifle

Barrel stiffness alone would be worth the change. 24" at 3000fps will have much greater whip /flex than a 18" at 3000fps.[I read barrel wear tests are going well, sig is not releasing results until they are completed.]
Far better BC bullets are finding the market, This could be a real upgrade for 700 action, or 700 custom actions. Maybe even AR-10 platform.
 
WildRose said:
80k is just scary and I seriously wonder how anything other than a solid piece of brass could stand up to it especially for multiple firings.

I have no problem getting in 2800-2850 Running loads that list 60k out of my .260's but this is nuts.

I also dont' see how barrels are going to withstand that kind of heat and pressure even in burst mode for sustained periods.

I know metallurgy has advanced immensely over the last 20-30 years but this sounds crazy to me.
Click to expand...
I think you got it right. Who would have thought you could drive a 1 ton crew cab truck at nearly 500hp and close to 1000ft/lbs of torque and get 20 mpg driving 70mph down the highway, and ride like a Cadillac did 30 years ago? It's bound to happen, technology advances in pretty much every platform you can imagine. Pressure is the biggest hold back in really leaping forward with rifle technology. Not much has changed in while. There has been some great advances, but the concept and limits have remained for several decades. People thought that smokeless powder pressures were crazy when they first came out, who knows maybe maybe 80k is the next norm.
It's not like having 60k right in front of your face isn't scary if you think about it, we're just used to it.
I'd love to lop 6" off of every rifle I own and keep still keep the velocity.
 
hogheadv2 said:
Far better BC bullets are finding the market, This could be a real upgrade for 700 action, or 700 custom actions. Maybe even AR-10 platform.
Click to expand...

Someone mentioned that to me as well but i just don't see how that's going to feasible in an AR10 with that kind of pressure, least not currently as it stands. I feel like you'd be sheering lugs left and right. A SBRd bolt rifle does sound promising but then the mentioned of SIG stating sustained use in a regular bolt action like the 700 would have unpredictable wear raises another cause for concern. This is all before even considering what it is going to cost to reload/buy this ammunition. I'd wager at this point it's going to be extremely pricey. I like the idea of the .277 maybe not the caliber selection but right now less it becomes standardized on a large scale it sounds like it's going to be quite an expensive niche to mess with.
 
5RWill said:
Someone mentioned that to me as well but i just don't see how that's going to feasible in an AR10 with that kind of pressure, least not currently as it stands. I feel like you'd be sheering lugs left and right. A SBRd bolt rifle does sound promising but then the mentioned of SIG stating sustained use in a regular bolt action like the 700 would have unpredictable wear raises another cause for concern. This is all before even considering what it is going to cost to reload/buy this ammunition. I'd wager at this point it's going to be extremely pricey. I like the idea of the .277 maybe not the caliber selection but right now less it becomes standardized on a large scale it sounds like it's going to be quite an expensive niche to mess with.
Click to expand...

Personally I think they'd have been far better off in the long run just doing a 6.8 PRC or 6.8-375. The latter would probably be ideal and easily capable of 3250-3450pfs with 130-140gr or heavier bullets.

Sig is doing this because they want a proprietary cartridge that probably can't be reloaded at least not without very specialized Sig Proprietary dies and components.

One of the greatest boons to the ammunition components industry has been the fact that all of our prior military cartridges could be reloaded with common equipment and components.
 
Last edited:
If someone has a better idea, let's have a look!
Sure it's probably not going to cost what lc 223 brass costs, but when you look at what people (me included) spend to get the most we can, it might make sense.
I'm not saying it will work, or even that it's a great idea, but I do like to see someone (sig) trying to do something that hasn't been done. People are so quick to call bs before it's even had a chance, let's have a look at this when it's out.
I get that this has "been done" but it's never been successfully done. I love to see innovation in this field, and to take leap like this is a gamble, but it takes a company willing to spend to get it figured out.
I'll remain hopeful for now, and give some props to sig for trying.
We'll see if it works.
 
nmbarta said:
If someone has a better idea, let's have a look!
Sure it's probably not going to cost what lc 223 brass costs, but when you look at what people (me included) spend to get the most we can, it might make sense.
I'm not saying it will work, or even that it's a great idea, but I do like to see someone (sig) trying to do something that hasn't been done. People are so quick to call bs before it's even had a chance, let's have a look at this when it's out.
I get that this has "been done" but it's never been successfully done. I love to see innovation in this field, and to take leap like this is a gamble, but it takes a company willing to spend to get it figured out.
I'll remain hopeful for now, and give some props to sig for trying.
We'll see if it works.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone saying it can't be done.

Even if they are completely successful though it will be an incredibly expensive round to shoot and barrel life is going to be incredibly short unless you can afford a titanium barrel barring some incredible leap forward in metallurgy and barrel treatments.
 
WildRose said:
Personally I think they'd have been far better off in the long run just doing a 6.8 PRC or 6.8-375. The latter would probably be ideal and easily capable of 3250-3450pfs with 130-140gr or heavier bullets.

Sig is doing this because they want a proprietary cartridge that probably can't be reloaded at least not without very specialized Sig Proprietary dies and components.

One of the greatest boons to the ammunition components industry has been the fact that all of our prior military cartridges could be reloaded with common equipment and components.
Click to expand...

Agreed the other issue that came to mind is we don't know barrel life and the cost to retrofit or build an entire new platform around the 277 furry would be astronomical if i had to guess. Mainly thinking if they were wanting it in the SASS role. Though to my understanding it's for a belt fed weapon?
 
5RWill said:
Agreed the other issue that came to mind is we don't know barrel life and the cost to retrofit or build an entire new platform around the 277 furry would be astronomical if i had to guess. Mainly thinking if they were wanting it in the SASS role. Though to my understanding it's for a belt fed weapon?
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned that in my initial or first couple of posts on the subject.

There may be some actions on the market rated for 80k psi rounds but Even monsters like the .408 and .375 Cheytacs are only running around 63k.

Yes I believe the Army criteria is for a belt fed medium/squad machine gun in 6.8.
 
One of my most accurate rifles has a thin 20" barrel. It's a .270 Winchester and it shoots as if it's got fire control radar. I treat it nice and don't shoot it hot because it's a hunting rifle.

When this rifle comes out I look forward to owning it. Everything about it is what I've dreamed of for decades. Already I pay $3+ per round for ammunition for my 338 RUM but I reload so the cost of ammunition is of no concern.

I cannot imagine they'd produce a rifle for US, the USA, and not make the cartridge reloadable. That would be sheer lunacy and guaranteed failure. As it stands there are more questions than answers though. I'm waiting to hear the hard facts of a real product.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

OG-danimal
Sig cross magnum?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Will.284
W
B
SIG Cross Carbon barrel
Replies
9
Views
8K
Brianc74
Brianc74
DENRIK89
Sig cross barrel options
Replies
5
Views
22K
Bozeman_HNTR
B
B
Sig cross in 308 OR 6.5 for short range deer
Replies
3
Views
606
Idaho Lefty
I
K
new chassis significant drop changes
Replies
5
Views
1K
Canadian Bushman
C

Recent Posts

Top