Small Arms Thread

[Karan M]

Kakkaji
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/army-chief-see ... fle-676301

[Kakkaji]

Kakkaji
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/army-chief-see ... fle-676301

Thanks Karan M

So, still asking for opinions about 'improvements'. All the intensive trials proved nothing about Excalibur?

[Kakkaji]

The fact that the Chief has asked for suggestions for 'improvements' implies to me that the Army plans to do an Arjun on Excalibur.

Since it is a modified INSAS, why not just induct it in a few units as an upgrade on their existing rifles? A few months in the field will bring out all the suggestions for improvements you need.

[Austin]

Modernized Dragunov sniper rifles (SVDm)



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1962055.html

[Karan M]

The fact that the Chief has asked for suggestions for 'improvements' implies to me that the Army plans to do an Arjun on Excalibur.

Since it is a modified INSAS, why not just induct it in a few units as an upgrade on their existing rifles? A few months in the field will bring out all the suggestions for improvements you need.

Kakkaji,
IMHO if its a decision driven after taking all his commanders into confidence, it will have higher chances of success. Otherwise, if deployed post haste, top down, it will only have reports about any flaws if its not accepted.

Lets hope for the best and fingers crossed.

[VinodTK]

India Gets its Guns

Driven partly by its developing rivalry with China, India is welcoming global gun manufacturers to set up shop to produce small arms including handguns, rifles, carbines, sub-machine guns, light machine guns and grenade launchers.

New investment rules allow private players to establish manufacturing units, sell to Indian defense forces and even cater to export orders. Forty-nine per cent foreign ownership will be permitted automatically but up to 100 percent FDI can be allowed if “modern technology”’ is used to manufacture indigenously. Top global manufacturers including Colt’s Manufacturing Co., Heckler & Koch and Israeli Weapon Industry and others have already huddled with Indian companies to establish synergies and gain a foothold in the sector.

Punj Lloyd Ltd has already established a 51-49 joint venture with IWI, a longtime supplier to the Indian security forces. This October, the company will set up a small arms factory in Malanpur in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh for assault rifles and submachine guns in collaboration with IWI, a first for the country.

Although internal security threats are a worry along with the fact that local manufacturers are handicapped by red tape, China’s increasing bellicosity is major reason for India to become the world’s largest weapons importers according to latest report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The report adds that China – the world’s third largest arms exporter – sold most of its weapons to India’s neighbors, further fuelling the latter’s insecurity.

The China-Pakistan nexus is another headache for India. It has led to Beijing’s heightened involvement in the disputed Kashmir region, making New Delhi view the situation as a conjoined threat to its security.

The current policy changes in the sensitive defence sector are being projected as a win-win for the country’s underserviced defence sector as well private players. However, the latter remain cautiously optimistic of the government’s move. Underpinning their scepticism is Modi’s Make in India drive, which seeks to transform India into a global manufacturing hub, but which they say has yet to show any tangible or meaningful technology buildup in the country. However, they have their fingers crossed that a similar disenchantment isn’t awaiting them.

Under the new directives, for the first time foreign and private sector companies will be able to manufacture small arms and ammunition in India. Facilitating their task further will be a recent revision in the Arms Rules 2016, modified by the government last month, which gives clear instructions to private companies on how they can set up businesses, sell small arms and bring in foreign investment.

According to a defence ministry source, Indian companies will be granted a seven-year license after vetting to set up units in special economic zones. “The arms manufactured will also be allowed for export subject to the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with the Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Commerce, on a case-by-case basis,” he added.

This liberalization, defense analysts say, marks a refreshing change from an earlier era when small arms manufacturing was a state monopoly and private players were barred from entering the fray. This resulted in resource-crunched and undercapitalized private companies struggling to keep pace with exponential demand from the country’s three armed forces, paramilitary forces and the state police.

“The earlier restrictive policies and the structure of the industry constrained domestic defense production with only 30 percent of the demand being met internally. The participation of private sector is even lower at about 10 percent,” said Jayant Rathi, a defense consultant with the Reliance Group.

These deficiencies, Rathi said, result in small arms being imported routinely at a staggering cost to the state exchequer. As part of the Indian Army’s “Future Infantry Soldier as a System” 2020 program India will pay an estimated US$10 billion to acquire small and medium arms from countries like Israel, Germany, Switzerland and the US over the next four years.

However, rising discontent among the armed forces about the limited availability of weapons and their inferior quality, and pressure from private companies to allow them entry into the sector over the years, resulted in the government allowing private participation in 2001. Companies like Punj Lloyd, L&T and Bharat Forge were granted licenses by the Department of Industrial Policy and Production to set up bases. However, delays and bureaucratic non-clearances scuppered progress.

According to a senior bureaucrat in the defense ministry, the biggest bottleneck confronting the private players is the multiplicity of government agencies involved in the procurement process. “Each government department has its own set of convoluted rules and procurement processes which seem designed to exasperate entrepreneurs. The harassment multiplies manifold if foreign companies are involved in deals due to the lure of kickbacks. This is really frustrating for companies who just want to get on with the task of earning legitimate profits.”

Experts say that though historically India has always preferred the public sector over private in defense production, changing geopolitical and military dynamics have forced a rethink. The Modi government is now looking for synergies and collaboration with defense production giants, especially from the west. For the latter, buffeted by a volatile economic climate, India remains an alluring prospect.

[SaiK]

Kalashnikov craze: Why Indian soldiers prefer the AK-47
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_ ... -47_629507

what in the world of a report is this?

[Thakur_B]

France has chosen KH416 to replace FAMAS.
https://www.rt.com/news/360496-france-r ... mas-hk416/

UK too is looking at HK416 to replace SA80. Proves how difficult it is even for countries with centuries of experience in designing and manufacturing firearms to come up with a rifle to meet modern day standards and expectations. Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner have really set the bar so high that its nigh impossible for the next generation rifles to show an evolutionary jump over their designs.

[Thakur_B]

France has chosen KH416 to replace FAMAS.
https://www.rt.com/news/360496-france-r ... mas-hk416/

UK too is looking at HK416 to replace SA80. Proves how difficult it is even for countries with centuries of experience in designing and manufacturing firearms to come up with a rifle to meet modern day standards and expectations. Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner have really set the bar so high that its nigh impossible for the next generation rifles to show an evolutionary jump over their designs.

[Thakur_B]

The Russians are churning out modern small arms designs and concepts like a Chinese assembly line. Either dusting off old concept designs into new products or innovating new designs. Even the Beligians, Germans, Swiss and Italians put together are put to shame by Russian small arms design bureaus.

MA 50 compact assault rifle by Dragunov, originally designed as a competitor to AK-74U but failed due to its ambitious use of polymers in 1970s.
5.45x39
The bolt is closer to Dragunov than AK
Short Stroke System.
Damn, this thing's compact.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... y-krinkov/

Dragunov SVK, Successor to Dragunov SVD. To be available in 7.62x54 and 7.62x51.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... ans-rifle/

RPK-16 as a successor to RPK-74.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... -firearms/

[SaiK]

back to square!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... s?from=mdr

Excalibur probability to kill is low!?!?

[ArmenT]

^^^^
Article is by Rajat Pandit.

[Marten_b]

Armen, it doesn't matter who wrote it. He has insights into the happenings at the Commanders conference, and represents the views of the Chandigarh gang. Basically Excalibur is being Arjunned.

[Viv S]

[srin]

back to square!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... s?from=mdr

Excalibur probability to kill is low!?!?

The report says they are going for 7.62x51 rounds, not the 7.62x39 AK-47 rounds ! It is surprising for two reasons: as per wiki, this means for the same weight, you carry less than half the number of current 5.56 rounds; and two, for a hand-stabilized assault rifle with such a powerful round, I'm doubtful of the accuracy of continuous fire.

[ArmenT]

Interestingly, even the Russians haven't used 7.62x39 mm. cartridge for the last 40+ years.

[Aditya_V]

back to square!
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... s?from=mdr

Excalibur probability to kill is low!?!?

The report says they are going for 7.62x51 rounds, not the 7.62x39 AK-47 rounds ! It is surprising for two reasons: as per wiki, this means for the same weight, you carry less than half the number of current 5.56 rounds; and two, for a hand-stabilized assault rifle with such a powerful round, I'm doubtful of the accuracy of continuous fire.

But Didnt the IA move to 5.56x45 rounds after the LTTE experience in the 80's where the 7.62X51 was found too cumbersome for close combat? I think like the CHinese we will need via media new ammunition which has higher power than the 5.56x45 but less cumbersome than the 7.62x51.

[shiv]

^^^^
Article is by Rajat Pandit.

Let me quote the report - again intended as clickbait for ToI containing absolute trash that we will discuss on here till the next clickbait comes out

NEW DELHI: India re-launched on Tuesday its global hunt for new-generation assault riflesafter similar attempts over the last decade failed due to unrealistic technical requirements and whiff of corruption, interspersed by debates on whether the gun should "kill" or merely "wound" adversaries.

This is fact

The project is going to be a mega one, with the Army looking to induct 65,000 rifles in the first go, with another 1,20,000 to be manufactured in India. This, of course, would be just the beginning for the 12-lakh strong Army, with the overall programme cost slated to ultimately cross the $1 billion-mark.

So like the MMRCA deal this man announces numbers, money etc. What we say is worthless. People who read these reports will seek information form sources - like Rajat Pandit. If he has contacts - there is money t be made

In the RFI (request for information) issued by the defence ministry on Tuesday, it was mentioned that the Army was seeking "a 7.62mm x 51mm assault rifle with lethality to achieve the objective of shoot-to-kill" toreplace glitch-prone 5.56mm INSAS
(Indian small arms system) rifle.

The RFI may be true but "replace glitch prone INSAS" is masala added by Pandit to mak it look as if the RFI itself has that information.

A request for information is a request for information. It's like asking a girl at a dance "What's your name'. It does not mean "Let's go to bed" or even "Whatcha gonna do with all that junk, all that junk inside your trunk"

[shiv]

I don't believe this. Is our army actually putting out shit like this? What's wrong with them?

http://www.janes.com/article/64165/indi ... ault-rifle

The rifle would need to be equipped with indigenously developed 40 mm under-barrel grenade launchers as well as with holographic and assorted multi-option telescopic sights "remaining relevant in design, metallurgy, and performance parameters for 25-30 years", the RfI stated.

From Teetar

[Manish_Sharma]

Kalashnikov craze: Why Indian soldiers prefer the AK-47
13 September 2016 Rakesh Krishnan Simha
The first article of this two-part series on Indian small arms, analyses the Indian soldier’s experience with the Kalashnikov type rifle.



This should be featured by Ripley’s Believe It Or Not: Indian scientists can develop, launch and guide a spacecraft to Mars 650 million km away, but they cannot produce a simple assault rifle that works.

The standard issue Indian Small Arms Systems (INSAS) rifle is so unreliable that both the Indian Army and counter-insurgency forces have asked for Russian replacements. In fact, Indian soldiers and police, with the tacit approval of their commanders, already use Kalashnikov rifles captured from terrorists and criminals to get the job done.

The 300,000-strong Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has decided to completely shun the indigenous INSAS, and wants 100 per cent of its soldiers in Maoist-infested areas to be equipped with AK-47s. According to the CRPF, while the error percentage in AK guns is 0.02 per cent, in INSAS it is 3 per cent. “We have found that our men are more confident with the AK series rifles,” said CRPF chief Dilip Trivedi.

In response to the SOS, the Indian government has imported 67,000 Kalashnikovs for the CRPF. India has spent approximately $500 million in INSAS procurement and looks like the money wasn’t well-spent.
пустым не оставлять!!

Kalashnikov to produce drones
Army wants AKs too

Retired Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain, is also an AK admirer. The former commander of the Srinagar based 15 Corps had his encounter with the legendary Russian rifle when he rejoined his unit during Operation Pawan, in Sri Lanka. “We had a few captured 7.62 mm AK 47s which were reserved for the Ghatak platoon and for a couple of scouts while we conducted jungle bashing,” he says.

Lt Gen Hasnain adds: “The captured AK series, worn and grimy from LTTE (Tamil guerrillas) over use, carried a romantic aura about it. The greatest thing was that it could fire in automatic mode. Why is that important? In the jungle or urban terrain, response at close quarters is a recurring phenomenon. Automatic high rate of fire from a weapon with an enhanced capacity magazine has far greater chances of success, especially in the crucial two minutes of the first contact.”

The INSAS, on the other hand, has performed badly, touching its nadir in the 1999 Kargil War. The new 5.56 calibre rifle either jammed or its components would crack, said an Indian Army officer.

Also, sometimes the gun would fire in full-auto mode when the selector switch was turned to the burst mode (three shots at a time). Incredibly, it didn't have a full-auto mode. "AK rifles were hurriedly sent to the frontline," the officer adds. "The Kalashnikovs were both life-savers and face-savers for us at Kargil."

Another officer of 17 Garhwal Rifles who battled militancy in Kashmir believes the AK-47 gave him and his troops a big morale boost. "Once I was chasing a militant armed with an AK-56. That chap just ran, but kept on firing his rifle. And then my SLR jammed. I lay flat on the ground, hoping that my adversary won't stop to turn back; if he did, I would be done for. Thankfully, he never did. But others weren't that lucky. But when we got the AKs, the situation changed completely. I knew I had 30 rounds of rock and roll and no bloody militant would dare face me when my Kalashnikov opened up," he said.
Exit wounds
пустым не оставлять!!

Kalashnikovs to check in at Sheremetyevo Airport

Trouble-free operation and low maintenance aside, the Kalashnikov – especially the AK-47 – has another advantage. Unlike bullets fired from other rifles, its larger 7.62 mm bullet creates a mushroom-like mini blast at the entry point. This causes disruption of tissues, leading to greater trauma and blood loss.

Before the INSAS, the India soldier’s standard issue weapon was the 7.62 mm SLR. Apparently, someone decided to copy western military doctrine, according to which a rifle should incapacitate a solider instead of killing him, thus increasing the logistics burden for his mates. However, as the Indian soldier’s experiences in a wide range of conflicts have proved, a gun with a higher kill capacity is better. Bigger is always better, and the 7.62 round is deadlier than the 5.56 mm of the INSAS.
Lessons from Vietnam

The Vietnam War was the first conflict in history in which assault rifles were used by both sides on an extensive scale.

Vietnamese soldiers were fortunate to get that era’s most advanced rifle – the AK-47. The rifle was remarkably low-maintenance, translating into better performance in Vietnam’s wet and humid environment.

In contrast, the American infantryman was armed with the shockingly poor Colt M16, which jammed so often that newly arriving American soldiers would enact the macabre drama of walking amidst injured or dying American soldiers to grab M16s that hadn’t jammed during battle.

There were numerous instances of American platoons losing fire-fights because of malfunctioning M16s. The situation was so dire that some Americans started picking up AK-47s that belonged to dead Vietnamese soldiers, Esquire magazine reports.

On one occasion a US sergeant carrying an AK-47 was stopped by his commander, who demanded to know why he was carrying a Russian weapon. The sergeant replied, “Because it works!”
Kalashnikov targets expansion with large-scale rebranding exercise
Kalashnikov completed a huge rebranding campaign
Real vs fake AKs

Since corruption and kickbacks are an integral part of Indian defence imports, it wouldn’t be out of place to question why India imports knockoffs – albeit better than shoddy INSAS – from countries like Romania and Poland. Why not import directly from Russia which is the home of the Kalashnikov, and which sets the quality benchmark?

Maybe it’s easier to cover up the corruption trail when the supplier is a relatively obscure East European supplier. Or perhaps the East Europeans have piles of AK-47s mothballed after the end of the Cold War and are able to offer a discount.

Buying the cheaper version doesn’t really matter if the item is, say, a coastal patrol boat. But a rifle is a different matter. Although Mikhail Kalashnikov came up with such a fantastic design that even the Romanians can’t wreck it, there is bound to be a difference in quality between the original versus the copy.

Second tier quality for the humble soldier reeks of discrimination. If India is going in for the world’s best dogfighter – the Su-30MKI, which costs $65 million per plane – why should the Indian soldier be given a $600 Romanian copy when the Russian original costs only a couple of hundred dollars more?

The clever learn from their own mistakes. The wise learn from the mistakes of others. However, India is unique – it just refuses to learn.
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_ ... -47_629507

[Bart S]

Since corruption and kickbacks are an integral part of Indian defence imports, it wouldn’t be out of place to question why India imports knockoffs – albeit better than shoddy INSAS – from countries like Romania and Poland. Why not import directly from Russia which is the home of the Kalashnikov, and which sets the quality benchmark?

Maybe it’s easier to cover up the corruption trail when the supplier is a relatively obscure East European supplier. Or perhaps the East Europeans have piles of AK-47s mothballed after the end of the Cold War and are able to offer a discount.

Buying the cheaper version doesn’t really matter if the item is, say, a coastal patrol boat. But a rifle is a different matter. Although Mikhail Kalashnikov came up with such a fantastic design that even the Romanians can’t wreck it, there is bound to be a difference in quality between the original versus the copy.

Second tier quality for the humble soldier reeks of discrimination. If India is going in for the world’s best dogfighter – the Su-30MKI, which costs $65 million per plane – why should the Indian soldier be given a $600 Romanian copy when the Russian original costs only a couple of hundred dollars more?

The clever learn from their own mistakes. The wise learn from the mistakes of others. However, India is unique – it just refuses to learn.
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_ ... -47_629507

Another bullshit article by a known Russian bootlicker who runs an an entire site for that purpose. The reason for pouring scorn on India becomes clear in the quoted portion above.

World over copies of the AK have been know to perform better, most notably the legendary Israeli Galil which is nothing but an AK made to Israeli manufacturing standards.

[Nitesh]

This could be a good contender for fit across small arms:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/sma ... aign=cppst

[nachiket]

I've seen the INSAS being compared unfavorably with the AK-47/AKM because the AK fires on full-auto and carries a 30 round mag.

Now the INSAS has had its share of issues and then some, but these two reason are absolute BS. Simply because it was the Army that wanted a 3 round burst mode instead of full-auto and they were the ones who decided to procure 20 round mags instead of the 30 round ones (which are available). Both of these decisions have proven to be quite poor in retrospect. But you can't blame the rifle for these shortcomings.

The ammo issue is slightly different. Yes the stopping power of the 5.56x45mm round is less than the both the Russian 7.62x39mm round as well as the old NATO 7.62x51mm used by our SLRs. But again, this was a decision made by the army itself, since that round has other advantages in terms of accuracy at range, weight (increasing total amt. of ammo carried) and lower recoil.

[ArmenT]

I've seen the INSAS being compared unfavorably with the AK-47/AKM because the AK fires on full-auto and carries a 30 round mag.

Now the INSAS has had its share of issues and then some, but these two reason are absolute BS. Simply because it was the Army that wanted a 3 round burst mode instead of full-auto and they were the ones who decided to procure 20 round mags instead of the 30 round ones (which are available). Both of these decisions have proven to be quite poor in retrospect. But you can't blame the rifle for these shortcomings.

The ammo issue is slightly different. Yes the stopping power of the 5.56x45mm round is less than the both the Russian 7.62x39mm round as well as the old NATO 7.62x51mm used by our SLRs. But again, this was a decision made by the army itself, since that round has other advantages in terms of accuracy at range, weight (increasing total amt. of ammo carried) and lower recoil.

Another few points to add to the list:
1. IA mandates something like 2 mags per soldier (i.e.) 40 rounds of ammo. Or maybe it is 3 mags. Either way, it is the same number of mags as was carried by the IA soldiers when using the old SLR (which also used 20 round mags). What this means is that the IA soldier is carrying the same number of cartridges as he did when using the SLR. Therefore, the advantage of using lesser weight ammo to carry more ammunition goes out the door, due to policy.

Incidentally, the M16 also originally had 20 round magazines in Vietnam era, probably due to the fact that its predecessor, the M14 had 20 round mags as well (and only 2 magazines issued with each M14 too!!). At least, the 20 round mags made sense for the M14 which uses .308 (i.e. 7.62x51 mm.) cartridges and the greater diameter of the cartridges makes only 20 round magazines practical (any more and the mag becomes too long and makes it harder to fire in prone position + heavier mag needs better locking as well). In fact, a loaded 20 round mag of 7.62x51 mm. weighs more than a 30 round magazine of 5.56x45 mm. ammo. For the 5.56x45 mm. cartridges, most US infantrymen carry 7 30-round mags as standard load (though some carry more).

One more interesting thing is that some 30-round US govt. issue standard mags for M16 are usually under loaded to 27 or 28 rounds due to issues with springs and seating problems. However, third party mags (such as Magpul p-mag) have no problems loading a full 30.

2. Speaking of Russian 7.62x39 mm., it might be worth noting that even the Russians don't use 7.62x39 mm. ammunition currently and haven't done so for about 42 years. Instead, they use 5.45x39 mm. ammunition, which is even smaller than NATO's 5.56x45 mm. ammunition.

3. The NATO standard 5.56x45 mm. cartridge is the SS109/M855. This was specifically picked because of the bullet's ability to penetrate a sov-bloc steel helmet at 600 meter range. OTOH, they made the bullet less capable of fragmenting than the bullet in the older M193 cartridge that the M16 originally used, under the grounds that this is "more humane". Fragmentation is what makes the bullet much more lethal. The M855 bullet does not fragment reliably under velocities less than 2500 feet/sec, which means it only frags at closer ranges. Since Afghanistan experience, some work was done to make another 5.56x45 mm. cartridge with a better fragmenting bullet design which frags at lower velocities (new M855A1 and Mk318 cartridges). However, it must be noted that even the M855 still produces a more lethal punch at longer ranges (> 200 meters) than a 7.62x39 ever could, because the larger round rapidly loses velocity over distance. In closer distances (i.e.) practical combat ranges, 7.62 packs a bigger punch simply because the bigger mass counts for it.

Just my two cents. Gotta run, perhaps will weigh in more later.

[shiv]

It suddenly occurs to me that the armies of the whole world, including the Indian army were gripped by a bout of "projection bias" (a variant of cognitive bias) when they all shifted to 5.56 mm. Let me explain that. The reason for the shift was that the 5.56 would wound and not kill. This is where "projection bias" kicks in. In projection bias you think that the other guy thinks like you do. You fail to understand that the other guy could think differently.

Armies across the world bought the argument that "If my mate is wounded, two of us would be needed to carry him. Therefore is an enemy soldier is wounded - they will use up two men to carry him out". This is projection bias that has resulted in huge money spinning by arms company and much loss of life. No one realized that there would be fired up jihadis who would keep coming even when wounded and whose mats would not carry hi away if he was wounded. So the wounding better than lethality argument was wrong from the word "go"

[Kakkaji]

It suddenly occurs to me that the armies of the whole world, including the Indian army were gripped by a bout of "projection bias" (a variant of cognitive bias) when they all shifted to 5.56 mm. Let me explain that. The reason for the shift was that the 5.56 would wound and not kill. This is where "projection bias" kicks in. In projection bias you think that the other guy thinks like you do. You fail to understand that the other guy could think differently.

Armies across the world bought the argument that "If my mate is wounded, two of us would be needed to carry him. Therefore is an enemy soldier is wounded - they will use up two men to carry him out". This is projection bias that has resulted in huge money spinning by arms company and much loss of life. No one realized that there would be fired up jihadis who would keep coming even when wounded and whose mats would not carry hi away if he was wounded. So the wounding better than lethality argument was wrong from the word "go"

In defence of Indian Army I would say that, until Kargil, the IA thought of the PA as its own twin that, being of the same lineage, thought and behaved the same way. Post-Kargil, as the distinction blurs between the Pak Army and it advance guard, the Jihadis, the IA is probably now realizing that it no longer faces a civilized opponent in the PA.

JMT

[shiv]

In defence of Indian Army I would say that, until Kargil, the IA thought of the PA as its own twin that, being of the same lineage, thought and behaved the same way. Post-Kargil, as the distinction blurs between the Pak Army and it advance guard, the Jihadis, the IA is probably now realizing that it no longer faces a civilized opponent in the PA.

JMT

I don't disagree with that - but the Indian Army merely copied the idea that came from the West and accepted it as the truth. Western armies started realizing that their assumptions were wrong - but their military industrial complex allows them to change much more rapidly. The Indian army is still stuck with no clear solution and small arms requirements that are more massive than most armies of the world.

I can understand that the army is a huge organization where the actual requirement for small arms is formulated - probably by a committee of senior officers who state their requirements. Typically I expect that more junior officers will be tasked with researching what is "the future" of small arms and coming up with a document of desirable qualities. The seniors group look at that - decide what they feel is best and get an RFI created. Unfortunately with the rise of the internet a lot of research is done on the internet and a lot of manufactrers make fake claims of capability - augmented by programs on History channel or Discovery channel/ Knowing that BR itself was used as a research source by young Indian armed forces officers even a decade ago - I am not surprised that the army asked for a "Churkendoose" of a rifle that no manufacturer in the world could make.

I have heard (in recent days) that the army is now going to embed its personnel along with research and manufacturing streams. I hope this happens. There is no magic in small arms. It will all be sweat. Hopefull it will be a lot of seat and little blood. And once again we will probably have to see a mix of imports and indigenous for the same reasons as we an see with regard to aircraft. Just my guess.

[ArmenT]

It suddenly occurs to me that the armies of the whole world, including the Indian army were gripped by a bout of "projection bias" (a variant of cognitive bias) when they all shifted to 5.56 mm. Let me explain that. The reason for the shift was that the 5.56 would wound and not kill. This is where "projection bias" kicks in. In projection bias you think that the other guy thinks like you do. You fail to understand that the other guy could think differently.

Armies across the world bought the argument that "If my mate is wounded, two of us would be needed to carry him. Therefore is an enemy soldier is wounded - they will use up two men to carry him out". This is projection bias that has resulted in huge money spinning by arms company and much loss of life. No one realized that there would be fired up jihadis who would keep coming even when wounded and whose mats would not carry hi away if he was wounded. So the wounding better than lethality argument was wrong from the word "go"

Small problem with your theory sir. The "wound not kill" was never a requirement during the development of the 5.56 round at all. The primary requirement was to produce a rifle that used a round that was lighter than the 7.62x51 mm., so that soldiers could carry more of them. This was all done because of a US study of various combat situations, where it was determined that soldiers with more firepower tended to win engagements. Therefore the US started development of a rapid firing weapon, but one that could use lighter bullets, so that the soldier would be able to sustain that firepower for longer periods of time. The 5.56x45 mm. cartridge was tested and found lethal at 600 meters range, which was one of the requirements.

The "5.56 is designed to wound, not kill" was a rumor that did the rounds around the Vietnam war era (Allegedly it was marketing-speak popularized by Robert McNamara and his team of whiz-kids that he brought from Ford Motor Company to the DoD, when they rammed the new rifle down the military's throat (several military people were against using a smaller round)) This started well after the 5.56x45 cartridge was picked for the M16. By the way, this "wound, not kill" rumor was not new -- it was also previously used to denigrate the US army's M1 Garand rifle, which uses (surprise, surprise) .30-06 cartridge. Turns out that the M1 was replacing a rifle using an even bigger cartridge, so many people in the military claimed that the .30-06 was designed to wound when it was first developed. I think the same rumor also did the rounds for the 7.62x51 mm. cartridge when it replaced the .30-06 in turn.

Also, no well trained soldier stops to pick up his wounded buddy during a charge. Instead, armies train people to continue charging to the target until it is neutralized and only after the fighting stops, to tend to their wounded. This was standard doctrine for practically every military force for hundreds of years, so it is not like military planners ever assumed that an opposing military forces soldiers would stop to tend to the wounded during a charge. Therefore this statement:

No one realized that there would be fired up jihadis who would keep coming even when wounded and whose mats would not carry hi away if he was wounded.

is completely unfounded. The military planners designed the round keeping a well-motivated enemy in mind.

[shiv]

That is interesting and plausible - but the "wound, not kill" has been quoted frequently as a selling point in addition to weight. And I have heard it come from Indian army sources as well - so I find it difficult to dismiss the idea that the attractiveness of 5.56 was based solely on weight and not on the story that goes with it.

I don't want to digress but the words "win a firefight" reminded me of how US research into what wins firefights (after WW 2) led to a situation in Vietnam where the US won most firefights in terms of body counts but the final outcome was negative for the US. I have stated this once before - but I personally get the feeling that the US armed forces, while well funded, have been under pressure from their political masters in such a way that they have developed great methods to lay down firepower so that in the end the battle is won - but defeats and failures end up being political, not military. Happened in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

But the question arises - if all this is so well known and clear why are soldiers reportedly asking for bigger calibers? In particular - the argument for the "medium size" 6.5 mm round as a compromise between 5.56 and 7.62 seems to have convinced the powers that be of the Indian army to demand a rifle with a changeable barrel that can take either 5.56, 6.5 or 7.62 mm. That is what I meant by a "Churkendoose" rifle. Maybe my impression is wrong - but at least two calibers were demanded per rifle with changeable barrels and no phoren manufacturer was able to meet the demand.

Whatever the reason for not wanting 5.56 it is not clear to me that all armies have a clear policy favouring one caliber over another. Both seem to have their plus points and negatives. What has the Indian army decided having determined that the INSAS is both outdated and not good enough

[vaibhav.n]

Nachiket,

1. The fully automatic INSAS 1C was supposed to replace the 9mm Sterling carbine much like its assault rifle cousin. It never saw the light of day for well known reasons on ARDE's part.

2. This is a very valid point on your part. I am somewhat divided on this issue and feel we should maintain the NATO standard cartridge.

If you do have a word with a large number of troops especially at OR and JCO level the larger 7.62 Russian round is heavily favoured much more so since their entire combat experience is based on COIN Ops. The survivable chances of an enemy hit with 5.56 is very high.

I have heard horror stories of enemies returning fire for long periods even after being hit on multiple occasions and causing own casualties. This kind of negative impression creates false myths wrt the ammunition. There are more capable 5.56 rounds now available.

[vaibhav.n]

Armen Saar,

The standard rifleman's load is 5 INSAS magazines including on weapon and 1 LMG spare mag carried by each soldier for the Bren Group.

You are right this is not much different when the load for the SLR stood at 80 rounds prior to the induction of the INSAS.

[Akshay Kapoor]

There are pluses and minueses with both rounds.

A good 5.56 round has a flatter trajectory so more accurate and it is supposed to tumble and thread through the body and disintergrate after hitting causing a lot of damage. A 7.62 mm rounds can sometimes (depending on angle of ingress) come straight out with less damage or more often take a huge chunk of the body when it comes out. But the problem is that an infantry soldier using iron sights has a max 300 mtrs range - limitation of eyes. That is why in a rifle with more range 400 mts and in auto mode errors creep in. Thats why INSAS was designed for burst mode....but it used to fire on auto due to manufacturing defects.

Thats why when 7.62 is married to an AK with less range it can be so lethal.

The crucial thing is manufacture more than design. A good solid 5.56 will be fine as long as it works and has good sights. Problem is OFB. This saga goes on and on in many different cases.

[shiv]

Thats why INSAS was designed for burst mode....but it used to fire on auto due to manufacturing defects.

Thats why when 7.62 is married to an AK with less range it can be so lethal.

The crucial thing is manufacture more than design. A good solid 5.56 will be fine as long as it works and has good sights. Problem is OFB. This saga goes on and on in many different cases.

Did OFB ever get to the bottom of this unexpected auto mode firing?

[Akshay Kapoor]

Don't know. The main thing they said were fixed were magazines cracking and rifle jamming. But problems did not disappear. Their trust quotient with armed forces especially army is very low. Lots of casualties with ammo bursting, misfiring all the time.

[shiv]

OFB is the most opaque of the PSU arms manufacturing concerns. From time to time we do get to see images or workers and plants of HAL, shipyards, Avadi. But OFB Zero. It is likely tyhat they have the most primitive set ups possible. OK that is an allegation. But how would I know. Shekhar Gupta visits HAL - someone els evisits Avadi. A third guy gets and image of the Brahmos plant. But who actually goes into OFB?

Total mystery

[Kakarat]

OFB is the most opaque of the PSU arms manufacturing concerns. From time to time we do get to see images or workers and plants of HAL, shipyards, Avadi. But OFB Zero. It is likely tyhat they have the most primitive set ups possible. OK that is an allegation. But how would I know. Shekhar Gupta visits HAL - someone els evisits Avadi. A third guy gets and image of the Brahmos plant. But who actually goes into OFB?

Total mystery

HVF AVADI is a part of OFB

[Akshay Kapoor]

More than techs set up and machines, it is governance and attitude that is a huge problem in OFB. It is always run by IAS at the top, there is a separate cadre called IOFS...Indian Ordinance Factory Services...also known as IAS (OFB). Absolutely sclerotic and incompetent and inbred. HAL at least hires exteranl people from time to time OFB is totally the worst of public sector. DRDO is open to some scrutiny, academic interaction , some benchmarking . OFB = 0. You should see how IAS is treated by OFs...maharajas.

If we can privatise OFB...the management and culture if not the ownership a sea change will come in national defence:

- Good quality munitions and weapons that will not blow up in troops hands
- an ability to use the subastantial resources and buying power to counter DDM and anti national media. We spend lacs of crores of OFB, they have tremendous leverage and under the right leadership this can act a counter pressure point against our anti national media.


That's why priavtisation is so crucial...it will build a constituency within India to champion national security. Not for patriotic reasons but purely commercial ones. If Bharat Forge and Reliance and Mahindra and TCS and Tatas make huge defence production you can be sure they will champion national security causes at political and media level. Unlike Naryan Murthy et all who wnated peace with Pak they will want action - as their manufactured munitions will be used. I spent hours discussing this with some very senior Generals including 2 VCOAS. They were very supportive but IAS lobby is dead against this.

[shiv]

The thing is arms are produced in Darra Adamkhel Arms are produced by OFB. What is the exact difference? What about QC? OK forget QC - where the hell are OFB factories?
Kanpur?
Kolkata
Cochin?
Chennai?
Dantewada?

Kookal tells me small arms is Kanpur

Their web page is rudimentary. I had created a more comprehensive page in 1997. These buggers are pathetic slackers.

[Gyan]

Govt allocated 400 crores in 2012 to complete large caliber weapon manufacturing units in OFB by 2015. The status in 2015 was 80% of even the Civil works (buildings) had not even reached tender stage. While Kalyani with full plant is sitting with no work.

[ArmenT]

The thing is arms are produced in Darra Adamkhel Arms are produced by OFB. What is the exact difference? What about QC? OK forget QC - where the hell are OFB factories?
Kanpur?
Kolkata
Cochin?
Chennai?
Dantewada?

Kookal tells me small arms is Kanpur

Their web page is rudimentary. I had created a more comprehensive page in 1997. These buggers are pathetic slackers.

I believe Ishapore (RFI - Rifle Factory Ishapore), Kanpur (SAF - Small Arms Factory) and Trichy (OFT - Ordnance Factory Tiruchirappalli) are the three places that they make INSAS and other small arms. Anyone with more info, please feel free to add to the list.

Ammo is also made at Cordite Factory Aruvankadu (CFA) in TN and at Ammunition Factory Khadki (AFK) near Pune.