Small Arms Thread

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Feb 2014 23:14

There have been rumors on Internet that Army multi caliber rifle tender has been tailored specifically for ARX-160 made by Beretta and that's why FN and HK did not even try to compete. Anyway the new DRDO MCIWS naturally lends itself to caliber change without too much complexity. Though it may indeed be upto 5 times more costly than INSAS even without additional attachments and accessories required for barrel change.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 08 Feb 2014 23:31

The rifle types in the Army are starting to take the form of the aircraft types in the IAF: a complete circus.

Where the IAF enjoys buying a couple dozen aircraft of all types, the Army seems to be interested in buying a wide range of rifles with no standardization. How many types have we seen already: AK-47s, INSAS, Tavor, M-4s and now the MCIWS/ARX-160. I understand the need for different rifles for Special Warfare teams and all that, but those are usually small in number compared to the size of the Army. What's arming the standard infantry troops? How about standardizing on one weapon and then spending the remaining money to provide optics and other accessories for the rifles to the common trooper on the ground. Right now I have seen only the SF folks having optics with their rifles.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2014 06:17

Guys, first video - its much more compact than I had thought.

Also reports suggest its got a similar short stroke gas piston as the HK-416 making it much more reliable than the standard M-4.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1bij7 ... h?start=12

Only 3 kgs! Basically in line with the ~3.5kg HK-416 (when loaded with ammo) etc.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Feb 2014 08:16

vivek_ahuja wrote:The rifle types in the Army are starting to take the form of the aircraft types in the IAF: a complete circus.

Where the IAF enjoys buying a couple dozen aircraft of all types, the Army seems to be interested in buying a wide range of rifles with no standardization. How many types have we seen already: AK-47s, INSAS, Tavor, M-4s and now the MCIWS/ARX-160. I understand the need for different rifles for Special Warfare teams and all that, but those are usually small in number compared to the size of the Army. What's arming the standard infantry troops? How about standardizing on one weapon and then spending the remaining money to provide optics and other accessories for the rifles to the common trooper on the ground. Right now I have seen only the SF folks having optics with their rifles.

Add NSG, BSF and ITBP to the mix.

This is how the procurement has been happening.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bill ... 21665.html

member_23061 · Post by **member_23061** » 09 Feb 2014 08:53

Is the MCIWS similar to this ?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Feb 2014 12:13

^^^
The MCIWS UPS is its ability to fire 3 different types of rounds, which I don't believe the ACR has.

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Feb 2014 12:18

My Updated Note:-

DRDO has been straining at its leash for developing a follow on to INSAS rifle from atleast 2005 onwards. They got the go ahead, or rather I believe the GSQRs around 2009-2010, so it has been in works for 4-5 years. The first bench test at DRDO labs was supposed to be in Middle of 2012, and supposedly Army has been testing it since last year, so we are pretty early in the trials, which can run for many many years followed by delays in setting up the production line.

My observations about MCIWS are:-

1. It is supposed to be machined from aluminum alloys which means that it will be light and will not heat up quickly. Even though DRDO has exposure to Composites with MSMG, they have done well to avoid the fad, as plastics tend to distort in extreme climates and weight saving is reduced as some portions have to be backed up by metal sheet in any case. The same philosophy has been adopted by HK-416 which has won the competition for US IAR.

2. Similar to HK-416 we have collapsible butt but DRDO has again done well to avoid additional complexity of hinged butt. The heavy lever in the open butt indicates that the butt contact points for extension and collapse would be true without flex & rattle. The collapsible butt should allow adjustment for ease of carriage, ergonomics, bullet proof jacket and also for confined spaces.

3. Similar to HK-416 design we have straight line design which allows for better control ability of recoil and in auto fire by reducing muzzle climb.

4. My guess is that the rifle breaks open by removing the lower front half of the receiver and one change the barrel group and lower receiver.

5. First this has the big benefit of removing the hinged upper receiver of the INSAS which has been a big problem. As evident if the sights are mounted on a hinged joint then after some time the joint will become rattly/loose and the sights will not be able to maintain the zero. So similar to HK-416 concept (borrowed from M-16, Sig) the lower part of receiver seems to break open for field stripping the rifle.

6. The Caliber change (my guess) will be evidently achieved by field stripping the rifle, and replacing the barrel & bolt group, lower receiver & magazine well while retaining the butt, trigger group, top receiver, fore-end heat guards/grips.

7. Personally I think that multi caliber is useless requirement adopted to favor some particular firangi company. Only USA tried adopting it, that for only its SF and even they ultimately walked out of it. Anyway, army has got what they wanted.

8. The rifle has folding sights and 5 picatinny rails. The charging Handle is ambidextrous like HK-416. It seems to have (my guess) quick change barrel facility and free floating barrel.

9. Most probably the well tested INSAS trigger group, rotary bolt, short stroke piston system (borrowed from AK-74 and somewhat same in HK-416), sights etc will be retained. Muzzle break seems to be same as INSAS. Though I hope better alloys will be used to lower weight and improve performance. The Baynet lug and sling points are also same as INSAS.

10. Army seemed to want a conventional design and thus MCIWS is conventional layout. Again an over-clever design which will allow it to be changed to bullpub or over complicated design like forward ejection + bull pub has been avoided.

11. The gas adjustment system is not clear from the pic.

12. The issue of ruggedness of INSAS magazines has been addressed by adopting metal inserts in the plastic magazine.

13. Proprietary rail of INSAS has been dropped in favor ubiquitous picatinny. There seems to be attachment point for fore-grip or bipod stand.

14. The carrying handle and butt trap etc from INSAS system has been dropped and we have bad @ss black color. The problem of handle being too below the barrel in INSAS also seem to have been addressed. Also the issue of feeding lip of magazine also being too low in INSAS, seems to have been addressed. That is rifle seems to more ergonomic and attempt has been made to remove the niggling kinks of INSAS.

15. There will also be improvement in weight and it seems that not only all the concerns in INSAS have been addressed, we have avoided an over-reach which has been a bug bear of DRDO in other projects.

16. The rifle will be evidently way more costly then INSAS and I wonder whether OFB has a capability to pull up its socks to manufacture such a sophisticated rifle (??). Though the production quality of rifles at def expo seem great. On another forum a person commented that displayed rifle has seem around 15,00 rounds fired through it.

17. The first pic of MICWS emerged in Ajay Shukla blog. Everybody noted the bullpub but as I pointed out even at that time the conventional rifle was the MCIWS.

pic

18. Incidentally DRDO has been working to improve 5.56mm ammo also, lets see what comes of it.

19 Probably the manufacturing expertise for this rifle not only came from INSAS but also came from UBGL which is also has machined aluminum body.

20. Anyway technologically it is more advanced and rugged than 4 out of 5 foreign contenders for Army assault rifle/carbine tender. Only ARX-160 will be a more advanced or rather more complicated than MCIWS but than MCIWS will be way more rugged, sturdy, robust and soldier proof than ARX.

21. In Conclusion, I would say that the position of charging handle, apart from other features discussed above, shows that for all practical purposes it is a reverse engineered HK-416. Not to forget HK-416 recently won the US competition for IAR, hence DRDO MCIWS can be considered the most advanced and most rugged rifle at the moment in the world. I hope you guys noted that 5 picatinny rails are moulded in the receiver, which shows that army may be intending to introduce optics, add-ons whole hog, as part of standard equipment in the forces.

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Feb 2014 12:24

Prasobh wrote:Is the MCIWS similar to this ?

Something like this, but way more advanced & rugged as MCIWS has non reciprocating charging handle, it is also ambidextrous, free floating barrel, rapid change barrel, machined aluminum receiver; all of which are not there in FN SCAR

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 Feb 2014 15:13

vic wrote:My Updated Note:-

7. Personally I think that multi caliber is useless requirement adopted to favor some particular firangi company. Only USA tried adopting it, that for only its SF and even they ultimately walked out of it. Anyway, army has got what they wanted.

Wiki on Beretta ARX 160....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_ARX_160

Different calibers are planned by changing out the barrel, bolt, lower receiver, and magazine. In addition to 5.56 NATO, 7.62×39mm and 6.8mm Remington SPC configurations are planned, as well as the possibility of 5.45×39mm. A prototype heavy version is chambered for the 7.62×51mm NATO as a battle rifle.[2]

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 10 Feb 2014 09:36

http://www.janes.com/article/33561/defe ... fle-trials

Seems like the Army (as usual) is in a hurry to buy stuff from abroad while disregarding cheaper/better indigenous options. The Army might be ending up as its worst enemy in the long run.

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Feb 2014 12:55

Let me compare the contenders in Army trials with MCIWS:-

1. Israeli ACE- An old design equivalent to INSAS, just a hippo with lipstick.

2. CZ805 heavy, without rapid change barrel, with inconvenient reciprocating bolt

3. Colt- Old design based on M-4/16, lost all competitions even in USA

4. Sig 556 – based on HK-416 same as MCIWS.

5. ARX-160 – complicated, costly and tender may have been tailored for its win.

As I said MCIWS is more advanced design compared to four guns and compared to ARX-160, it is way more rugged and soldier proof.

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Feb 2014 16:55

vivek_ahuja wrote:
Karan M wrote:Vic, good writeup.

The pics also show pretty good production quality, even for a prototype which shows signs of weathering. Looks like a huge step up from INSAS. Granted this is a prototype from 2013 and likely to go through further refinement, and will have to meet demanding IA criteria, but its still a big change features and build quality wise apparently.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DO_MCR.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Rifle.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DO_MCR.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 06!MCW.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DO_MCR.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 06!MCW.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... db/MCW.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Rifle.jpg
I actually love this weapon so much that I feel it must find its way into the scenarios dhaga at some point, don't you agree?

Yes ... how indigenous systems, even though ordered in limited quantities, saves the day and there is finally an epiphany at the top

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 10 Feb 2014 17:40

Army promotions, MOD Babus all report to the political bosses and the Political system. Army will perform as its Political bosses want it to do. So it does what it is directed tto.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 10 Feb 2014 22:49

Aditya_V wrote:Army promotions, MOD Babus all report to the political bosses and the Political system. Army will perform as its Political bosses want it to do. So it does what it is directed tto.

...making the Army's generals look like spineless sycophants. It is one thing to be a follower of a system and its laws. Its quite another to be a leader/out-spoken advocate of change and improvements within the same system.

And if the Generals/top-brass can't tell the difference, the system is doomed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2014 03:14

I think the Army is preparing for multiple contingencies: war with irregulars, war with regulars. They want quick change capability for flexibility.
Eg troops in J&K can be dual tasked.

vic · Post by **vic** » 11 Feb 2014 08:59

re Ramana, if you read a little more about quick change you will realize that it is not practical. Quick change has been thought alongwith 3.6 kg weight with Indian Ammo as only ARX-160 will fulfill this requirement. Basic ARX would be ten times the cost of INSAS and with quick change attachments upto 20-50 times, it neither practical nor affordable. Why noooobody in the world has adopted it ???????

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 11 Feb 2014 09:30

Sigh. And we will end up buying 66,000 super-expensive rifles for an army of 1,000,000 and add to the plethora of rifle-types that already exists.

If this does not have a sign of pocket-padding I don't know what does!

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Feb 2014 10:46

Easy for us to say when family and career are not at stake, I doubt I would be any different when so much is on the line.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 11 Feb 2014 10:56

Aditya_V wrote:Easy for us to say when family and career are not at stake, I doubt I would be any different when so much is on the line.

Which is exactly why "we" are not at their position. If people who occupy these posts are indeed more occupied by their careers rather than the interests of the organization and its people which they command, then there is indeed a problem. Fact is, there are very few organizations like the Army where the actions of the main leader can save or waste lives in combat. If a man is more consumed by career when they reach such high ranks, he should be in any private company in civilian life.

More is expected from a General of the Army than a CEO of a private company.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 11 Feb 2014 19:43

This "lives are on the line" nonsense (not a dig at you, Aditya, just a general observation) has long been used to justify short-sighted decisions like the procurement of expensive foreign weapons when local alternatives were available. It works if done once in a while to tide over some immediate deficiencies of critical equipment, but sets a very dangerous trend when it becomes the norm.

When you spend precious foreign exchange on procuring basic weapons as a matter of course, it leaves little money available for other purchases. So while you may enhance the mango soldier's security a tad by equipping him with a gold plated German rifle, you also diminish it if you can't, for example, procure a dozen squadrons of advanced fighter-bombers to give him air cover when needed because you ran out of money.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 11 Feb 2014 23:31

Mihir wrote:This "lives are on the line" nonsense (not a dig at you, Aditya, just a general observation) has long been used to justify short-sighted decisions like the procurement of expensive foreign weapons ..

the situation of the soldier may not be nonsense; the decision may be so.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 12 Feb 2014 00:14

Wouldn't it be easier to cheaper buy 2 guns instead of a multi caliber gun. First Making the Rifle multi caliber will invariably add more complexity making it more expensive than a single caliber gun. Second you need to change a whole host of parts(barrel, lower receiver etc) to change the round it fires. So essentially you don't buy a single gun but a gun and a half.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 12 Feb 2014 00:21

The basic premise in many arguments here is that the PSUs are making top-grade guns that meet or exceed requirements but the army, being enamored of fancy, expensive foreign maal, deliberately torpedoes said top-grade desi guns. It assumes two absolutely fantastic ideas:

1) The PSUs know better than the army what is a "good" gun.
2) Even though the army is fighting and dying on a daily basis, it will reject a "good" gun in exchange for foreign bribes.

Does no one see how ridiculous this thinking is?

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 12 Feb 2014 01:02

No, the absurdity of an indigenous system missing from the list of rifles being trialled by the Army is the premise here. We don't know whether the PSU-developed gun is a "top-grade" gun or something that will fall apart before the first round is fired. How would we? There haven't been any trials.

The argument is that any other army would have jumped at a project like this, claimed ownership, seen it through to completion, and worked on progressively improving its capabilities. Sadly, it seems intent on purchasing foreign weapons instead.

The only thing ridiculous on this thread are the straw men being constructed and knocked down with practiced ease.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Feb 2014 01:07

Victor wrote:The basic premise in many arguments here is that the PSUs are making top-grade guns that meet or exceed requirements but the army, being enamored of fancy, expensive foreign maal, deliberately torpedoes said top-grade desi guns. It assumes two absolutely fantastic ideas:

1) The PSUs know better than the army what is a "good" gun.
2) Even though the army is fighting and dying on a daily basis, it will reject a "good" gun in exchange for foreign bribes.

Does no one see how ridiculous this thinking is?

It is not as ridiculous. The people who fight and die and the people whose pockets get lined up are not the same.

P.S. Having said this. Do I have faith in DPSUs serial producing good quality guns? The answer is no for me.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Feb 2014 01:16

vic wrote:re Ramana, if you read a little more about quick change you will realize that it is not practical. Quick change has been thought alongwith 3.6 kg weight with Indian Ammo as only ARX-160 will fulfill this requirement. Basic ARX would be ten times the cost of INSAS and with quick change attachments upto 20-50 times, it neither practical nor affordable. Why noooobody in the world has adopted it ???????

All this quick change system BS comes from being followers not leaders. US/NATO do the great 5.56mm is the future, wounding soldiers will remove 3x from the battlefield rubbish, and world over, everyone (almost everyone bar PRC apparently) scrambled to follow suit. Then comes experience of actual conflict by the followers, India gets shocked in COIN, then at Kargil and realizes 7.62 mm is not so bad. UK scrambles to get 7.62mm equipped guns for Afghanistan. And then this quick change stuff starts. One gun to rule them all, with different barrels and ammo stockpiled, supposedly. Its a bit of a farce. So if you are fighting guerillas or mujahid battalions and they refuse to play by the rules and don't get evacuated by 2-3 other soldiers when shot by 5.56mm and only wounded (and not surely killed), will the attacking regiment stop, whip out barrels and put new ones in and magically get ammo from someplace?

Isnt it better to define our own ammo standard - not as large/heavy as 7.62mm and not as small as 5.56mm and stick to one ammo type? Instead, here we are, playing follow the leader & (IMHO) the Army is chasing its own tail.

I also find the IA's belief that buying foreign & having that gun made at OFB>>> buying local stuff made at OFB, will be solution for all ills, to be ludicrous. In the past, IMI made FSAPDS never took off at OFB. Why? TOT issues. IMI never resolved those, and got blacklisted. T-72s were never made properly at OFB - TOT issues and OFB challenges both, after Soviet Union fell was one of the issues mentioned.

So, what guarantee is there that videshi experts will solve OFB issues and transfer TOT for uber rifles, when those uber rifles are not in service worldwide either? They will have teething issues & then TOT to OFB will form a legendary case study by itself.

At least dal chawal eating scientists and technical staff from ARDE are in Pune and in the same country, timezone and won't charge an arm and leg for extra "consultancy" or come with an army of lawyers to dispute any issue.

The IA never seems to learn from its experiences and will unfortunately be set for another disappointment. What we are likely to see judging from the T-90 experience. Initial locally built super sophisticated rifles fail QA. OFB cites improper TOT etc.

Army rushes to MOD, yells its modernisation is being held up. Instead of 100,000 rifles being built in India, a few more are imported till "problems are resolved", then a few more, then a few more...
Meanwhile, the MICWS wiill be seen as the fly in the ointment, holding up procurement & if not quitly buried, may be given the Arjun treatment, endless trials, gripes about something or the other, keep jumping through hoops.

Perhaps, it can still be supplied to the Paramils, but even there, the import lobby has made huge strides, and the states will have a plethora of used INSAS available.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Feb 2014 01:28

Mihir wrote:No, the absurdity of an indigenous system missing from the list of rifles being trialled by the Army is the premise here. We don't know whether the PSU-developed gun is a "top-grade" gun or something that will fall apart before the first round is fired. How would we? There haven't been any trials.

The argument is that any other army would have jumped at a project like this, claimed ownership, seen it through to completion, and worked on progressively improving its capabilities. Sadly, it seems intent on purchasing foreign weapons instead.

The only thing ridiculous on this thread are the straw men being constructed and knocked down with practiced ease.

Exactly. A few years back, I met an IA gent who was involved in D&D of INSAS, no fan of OFB and supported private sector manufacturing, but also firm that making our own guns was the way to go. He also mentioned there were moves to kill/scuttle the whole INSAS experience and import ad hoc, and it would be a mistake as we would lose the hard gained ability to design and develop own small arms in the country. I asked him why then, were imports going through and why would the IA not proceed with its own efforts when it was so involved with the INSAS. Answer, imports are an easy option, finance is available. Net, our predilection for "easy" solutions has meant that stuff like this can happen.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=14431

Efforts by Indian states to equip their police forces with modern weapons have hit a roadblock. Germany and Austria have refused to give export licences to their weapon manufacturers wanting to sell to certain Indian states which they believe have a poor human rights record.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/defe ... 29516.html

What rubbish is this?

If OFB mfg is an issue (and it is cited as an issue by many), bring other DPSUs with better QA (and there are several) and the pvt sector into the process. Instead of this import, import, import business. And then say, OFB will manufacture but this time, it will be different.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Feb 2014 08:02

Please do not forget that imported design will ALSO be manufactured by OFB, so how come OFB is ok when license manufacturing foreign maal at 10 times the cost of indigenous solution?

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Feb 2014 08:03

abhik wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to cheaper buy 2 guns instead of a multi caliber gun. First Making the Rifle multi caliber will invariably add more complexity making it more expensive than a single caliber gun. Second you need to change a whole host of parts(barrel, lower receiver etc) to change the round it fires. So essentially you don't buy a single gun but a gun and a half.

Yes, that was the conclusion of US SF and therefore they dropped SCAR Light

Hari Sud · Post by **Hari Sud** » 12 Feb 2014 10:26

INSAS is a good rifle. It had its teething problems which a nit picking Indian Army magnified to persuade the civilian authorities to get a superior multicaliber rifle. These multicaliber are not superior at all. It is impractical to change the barrel and ammunition on a fly when under fire. A soldier will be dead while in the process changing the barrel. It is a logistics nightmare to carry two different type of ammunition and get resupplied. Nobody uses a multicaliber rifle to the battle. These are sniper rifles where two soldiers stay at least a thousand yards away. But for sniper rifle role, these are highly inaccurate beyond 800 yards.

My take on this whole affair is that Indian Army is not ready to DUMP INSAS rifles. Improved INSAS would be every soldier's friend. No problems of INSAS have surfaced except the corruption minded generals and Defence Ministry officials. It's last problems wre on Siachen, where -40 degree Centigrade froze the rifles. It was not highly unexpected of new rifle, just introduced in 1995. Since then these problems are history. What Nepalese Army suffered from INSAS rifles was jamming. They never cleaned and serviced them as required.

There is no question that INSAS is highly accurate compared to its current similar rifle. It has a smaller caliber bullet. For that we have to thank our American friends. It is them who envisaged that since 1956, when the M-16 rifle was invented, that the combat would be at close quarters at 200 yards. Our Generals who were attending courses in US came highly convinced and recommended dumping the FAL, a highly successful rifle as its caliber was higher. They wished to copy the Amercans.

In Vietnam an average American GI would dump its M-16 during a battle and pick up the Vietcong Ak-47. The latter never jammed and fired in automatic mode. The American inventor insisted on rifle cleaning and supplied a plunger to every soldier to un-jam the rifle, it it jammed. About 15 years later they had a perfectly working M-16. Still it had small caliber bullet, hence AK -47 ruled supreme.

Copy cat generals in India realized that Problem of the smaller caliber bullet and without admitting their fault on selection of of caliber began blaming on quality and lack of service and God knows everything else. The problem came to fore when during Kargil operation, INSAS equipped Indian soldier had to get close enough to shoot. The Gerrand equipped Pakistani soldier could shoot from double the distance. Hence a few thousand AK-47 were procured both for anti insurgency duty.

India could produce AK-47 but the Russians objected to it. They wanted India to get license to make it in India. For some reason Bulgarian made AK-47 were cheaper. Everything cheap is not trustworthy but that is how Indian Army and Civillian bureaucracy operates. Large scale actions other than anti insurgecency Operation has not taken place with AK-47, hence Bulgarian rifle have not been tested as much as the INSAS was tested in Kargil in 1999.

The interchangeability rifle requirement has been born out of the muddle of small caliber bullet of INSAS as opposed to Gerrand 7.62 carried by Pakistani soldiers, and trying to correct the earlier mistake of pressing for smaller caliber rifle. Hence Indian army in its unique but highly stupid mode is correcting itself by looking for interchangeability barrel rifle. Now the soldier can use both caliber rifle except that while changing the barrel in fast moving action, get killed.

It was highly stupid to dump FAL 7.62, it is highly stupid now to dump INSAS 5.56, which took a dozen years to perfect and still highly stupid to ask the soldier to change the barrel during the battle in a fast pace action and get killed.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2014 11:23

Multicalibre requirement has nothing to do with modifying the rifle under fire. Its about maintaining a smalller logistical footprint. The either 5.56 or 7.62 argument is fundamentally flawed. The Army needs both.

A 5.56 assault rifle for normal issue complemented by scope equipped 7.62 rifles for sharpshooters/marksmen/scouts. In addition, an infantry battalion should be able to employ the same weapons for operations in built up areas and for desert warfare, by switching out the barrels. By not lugging around two rifle types, the unit can simplify its inventory of magazines, stocks, receivers, trigger/bolt assemblies etc and it allows for easier training and maintenance.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Feb 2014 12:34

Viv S wrote:Multicalibre requirement has nothing to do with modifying the rifle under fire. Its about maintaining a smalller logistical footprint. The either 5.56 or 7.62 argument is fundamentally flawed. The Army needs both.

A 5.56 assault rifle for normal issue complemented by scope equipped 7.62 rifles for sharpshooters/marksmen/scouts. In addition, an infantry battalion should be able to employ the same weapons for operations in built up areas and for desert warfare, by switching out the barrels. By not lugging around two rifle types, the unit can simplify its inventory of magazines, stocks, receivers, trigger/bolt assemblies etc and it allows for easier training and maintenance.

Horror of super horrors, even in multi caliber rifles you still have to lug around bolt, barrel, piston group etc for different calibers. Also multi caliber rifles of 5.56mmx45 caliber CANNOT be converted into 7.62x51 caliber. It would like stuffing a truck engine into a moped.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2014 13:02

vic wrote:Horror of super horrors, even in multi caliber rifles you still have to lug around bolt, barrel, piston group etc for different calibers. Also multi caliber rifles of 5.56mmx45 caliber CANNOT be converted into 7.62x51 caliber. It would like stuffing a truck engine into a moped.

You'll have to lug around the barrel, magazine but its still preferable to lugging around an entire non-compatible rifle. And you can have an assault rifle convertable to a battle rifle (e.g CM 901).

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Feb 2014 15:52

So you will ask the enemy to stop firing, sit down with a brandy & cigar, change/swap various components and then re-calibrate & re-zero the sights at firing range, thereafter come down back to battle, take down the white flag and start firing.

Weight of two seperate 5.56mmx45 and 7.62mmx39 rifles is around 3+3kg=6kg. The weight of multicaliber rifles 4kg+1kg=5kg. Note as the change has to take place only at the base therefore the 1kg weight difference is minimal considering that weight of different types of ammo itself will be tens of kg.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Feb 2014 16:54

A nice write up giving the important details of MCIWS is at

good post credit arnabmit

The image is:-

srin · Post by **srin** » 12 Feb 2014 16:56

Viv S wrote:
vic wrote:Horror of super horrors, even in multi caliber rifles you still have to lug around bolt, barrel, piston group etc for different calibers. Also multi caliber rifles of 5.56mmx45 caliber CANNOT be converted into 7.62x51 caliber. It would like stuffing a truck engine into a moped.
You'll have to lug around the barrel, magazine but its still preferable to lugging around an entire non-compatible rifle. And you can have an assault rifle convertable to a battle rifle (e.g CM 901).

Why would a single mission require two calibres of rifle ?

I don't think there is a practical case of calibre change in the field. What *might* be more feasible is that when a unit is deployed for COIN, the entire unit's weapons get to 7.62mm while for combat, they go to 5.56mm.

But it looks silly even when I type it. Better to equip everyone with say 6.80mm rifles that might work in all missions, or have COIN units use a different rifle altogether.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Feb 2014 17:18

vic wrote:So you will ask the enemy to stop firing, sit down with a brandy & cigar, change/swap various components and then re-calibrate & re-zero the sights at firing range, thereafter come down back to battle, take down the white flag and start firing.

The first line that I posted (and you quoted) was - 'Multicalibre requirement has nothing to do with modifying the rifle under fire'.

srin wrote:Why would a single mission require two calibres of rifle ?

I don't think there is a practical case of calibre change in the field. What *might* be more feasible is that when a unit is deployed for COIN, the entire unit's weapons get to 7.62mm while for combat, they go to 5.56mm.

The reference was to the battalion 'lugging it' around through various deployments. There was no suggestion of calibre changes by the soldier in the field, in my post.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 12 Feb 2014 18:00

Indeed 6.8mm should be standard for Infantry during combat, 7.62 for COIN and 5.56 for Law enforcement roles

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 12 Feb 2014 18:32

It is meant as a common platform for Counter Insurgency operations for the 7.62x39mm and for regular operations to be switched to 5.56mm NATO and not be carried into battle and switched as one's whims and fancies. The Indian Army does not use the Russian 7.62mm round for regular ops sans for the Druganov. Intermediate one size fits all calibres have not really been successful and the army will likely retain the 7.62mm NATO.

This will be interesting considering the fact that IA has a undergoing competition with the front-runner, the futuristic and superbly built ARX-160 so where will the DRDO weapon fit into this equation considering the fact that the Army is likely to issue the winner a follow on contract too for the Assault Rifle in addition to the Carbine one to have standardization.

Apparently, the Beretta went through gaga reviews with troops at the Infantry School, with zero stoppages even after it went through a supposedly a gruesome routine. Thing is, a weapon system with actual credentials to back up with the political muscle it can deploy will be an uphill combo for the DRDO to overcome.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 12 Feb 2014 20:18

Irrelevant rant deleted. User warned for offensive language towards Services. - rohitvats.