Bharat Rakshak

My 2 paise on this issue.

From the DNA article, is the reporter sure that the army wants the soldier to carry both the barrels and their ammo during operations? That will be the most asinine thing to do. The Army might have asked for the barrels to be interchangeable for different calibers but at the unit workshop not the frontline. The article seems to be DDM worthy apart from one valid question: Do we really need a new rifle with such exotic specs?

Any rifle or caliber chosen will need to take care of the logistics part apart from the tech specs. 5.56x45, 7.62x39 & 7.62x51 are the most produced caliber currently and we can replenish large amounts of stocks from different sources at short notice while other calibers may not be. They also serve their respective areas very well and there hasn't been complaint from the forces regarding this. So why are we talking of moving to a single round which will take care of both the areas? If it ain't broke then why plan on fixing it? The ones who have switched to this single round don't operate at the level and intensity of US, Ru, India or Pak. So how do we know that this round will fulfill both the roles?

Disclaimer: My expertise with small arms extends only up to the understanding of the science and technology behind these weapons. I haven't fired anything other than 0.22 pea shooter!

koti

while there may incorrect whether its 5 kgs or 10

the fact is this is a stupid move.

I have checked with a few officers SF and non SF and they cannot fathom who is making this request. Other than a very small number of soldiers it is too much for the avg infantryman

The thinking is either its a General touring some European country who got fascinated but has very little combat experience to understand this or worse someone looking for a cut.

this is a just summary of opinions I got - for what its worth

The DNA article indicates which case it maybe.

Not necessarily so.

The most likely M16 replacement/supplement the USMC and USArmy are looking into is the Scar or IAR also feature quick barrel change and multi caliber.

Maybe the IA sees some ratio of 5.56 and 7.62 in a unit and a common platform is advantageous there.

SCAR is (was ?) intended to replace M4, while IAR is supposed to replace M249 in USMC.

It looks like US will continue with M16 for the foreseeable future for it's AR needs.

be a shame if we end up importing even infantry rifles in millions. in terms of TFTA "looks" the tavor and scar types will always win over desi maal but our maal will be much cheaper and amenable to quick variations and mods by OEM without lectures on human rights and religious freedoms.

in the mountains i have read its harder to estimate distances for hunters and they prefer high charge rounds that are flat trajectory over long ranges. if the idea is to re-orient IA to take the lizard down, perhaps we can move a 7.62mm version of the INSAS with a choice of 20 rd flat mag or a 60 round box mag + full auto mode option for the SAW variant (60-100 rd box mags, heavy barrel, bipod , full auto mode)

the SOCOM units have changed their mind about 5.56mm SCAR and are instead going to buy the 7.62mm SCAR-H mk17 per wiki.

just like computers moved from mainframe to desktop now back to centralized via server farm and cloud...I am forseeing a return to the 7.62mm by the faithful.....todays threats need to be tackled at long range, are often fleeting and urban and mobile, and they have full access to good BPJs.....the old shalwar clad spray n pray threats are gone.......

Most likely scenario. A certain balance has obviously been arrived at.

I don' think the normal soldier would lug both types of barrel, ammo & associated equipments. It would be more a case of the soldier changing the barrel at the unit jump off zone, before moving into the actual battlefield. The actual barrel & caliber chosen would depend on the mission profile.
It would only be during special operations or selected few high risk operations, that the soldier would actually carry multiple barrels & ammo.

As mentioned by koti, it might be a scenario where IA has a ratio of soldiers in the platoon armed with different caliber guns and maintaining commonality by having same platform.

However, one question needs to be answered, i.e in all the above case wouldn't it add to the logistics, which already has to take care of now keeping track of ensuring different amount of ammo & spares are sent to the troops, not just based on a fixed ratio but based on what the troops of a particular area are using up. In one area the troops might be using up 7.62mm ammo more and in another 5.56mm. It would simply be a logistical nightmare to ensure the correct ammo's reach in the correct proportions to the troops.

So why add to this problem. For a select few SF teams, niche usage & operators it makes sense. But for whole sale army it seems to be fraught with undue risk.

There is a reason armies are moving to single caliber big guns, be it big howitzers or guns for the mountains. There is a reason for multi-mode capability warheads being developed for Man portable ATGM/missile.The answer is simpler logistics.

Logistics is the key and the world is working to make it easier.

It is not going to be a new problem.

IA platoons consist of 5.56x45mm Insas; 7.62x51mm Bren,PSG,Galil; 9mm sterling; 7.62x54 SVG in some combo.

We cannot replace 7.62x51 used in DMR due to its better characteristics and proliferation in IA. The only one replacable is the 9mm with 5.56 NATO if we want to go ahead with this variety.

Anyone have any info on 7.62x39 DMR's anywhere?

Yes currently we are having this menagerie of ammo. But if you look at it except for the Special Ammo requirement of Sniper Rifles, rest can be taken care of either by a single type. Infact that was the idea all along when the INSAS family was being designed. A single 5.56 mm rifle, LMG version & Carbine to replace the 9mm sterling. So except for the small amount of special ammo for sniper teams, rest was supposed to be standardized for better logistics.

What is a needed a good look at what are the needs and find the right calibre for our needs. It can be 5.56 mm or 7.62mm or an intermediate one. We have developed in house gun design experience when we made the INSAS. Take those learnings forward and design a new one.

Not sure if the following is the article being discussed:
Army’s rifle plan; 10kg burden on soldiers, $250mn on us

What struck me in the article was the following


The other thing was the following sentence. Does "fashion" play a role in small arms, or is there some great advantage in the Bullpup design. I really don't know.

the onlee advantage I know of is a shorter total length...easier to carry in confined spaces like IFV or tanks as personal arm. that being said, the INSAS is fairly short.

smacks of the same mentality as "US has the 5th gen, so everything else being obsolete lets throw them away and go JSF"

Bull-pup, I have read also provide better balance, because of the placement of the handle being much closer to the CG of the gun. However they do suffer from difficulty in ambidextrous usage, because of the shell ejection being so much closer to the face. Also wouldn't the overall short length mean that bayoneting would be a problem especially if the enemy has a longer gun.

Wouldn't a foldable stock also allow for easier carry confined spaces.

Army’s rifle plan; 10kg burden on soldiers, $250mn on us



Only ONE of 32 European manufacturers meets the Indian Army's requirements.

If that is the case I guess I would be justified in lumping those 31 loser/failed European manufacturers along with the OFB that attracted the following comments in earlier pages of this thread?

the only prominent bullpup options I see are the Tavor, Steyr AUG and Famas. someone must have paid a visit to austria or france. paki SSG have the steyr so we can scavenge ammo on the field

FN P90 is more like a compact SPG type weapon and H&K's efforts for the british L85 and problems are well known http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullpup

Only 5.56x45 NATO, 7.62x51 NATO & 7.62x39 Russian calibers are being standardized upon. These are also the most widely available ammo in the world and can be sourced unhindered by arm-twisting. The other intermediate calibers that claim to bridge the gap between 5.56 & 7.62 are adopted but in smaller niches only and yet to find any widespread adoption. I personally discount PRC adopting the 6.5 or 6.8 round since their operational experience is very limited compared to other major forces.

bmallick is correct with the explanation for the in-field caliber change that is being highlighted. The logistics of the ammo isn't a problem since we are already dealing with it currently! The biggest upside is logistics of rifle parts being streamlined with about 80-90% commonality for these multi-caliber rifles.

koti, 7.62x39 was developed for assault rifle use. 7.62x54 was developed for DMR use with Dragunov. Now that we are talking of ammo calibers, I recall the discussion in the SF thread sometime back about Galil replacing Dragunov in the IA and wondering why? Now it makes sense, Galil uses 7.62 NATO same as PSG and Bren, ergo simpler logistics!

Shiv, the bull pup is used to reduce the length of the rifle and make it easier to handle for folks in confined or enclosed areas. The ejection of the spent casings and gases closer to the face in the bullpup design is still a concern and yet to be satisfactorily addressed in many designs. The modern armies of France, China and Britain put together just about manage to match the more modern US force which is still going along with the traditional layout but has managed to considerably reduce their lengths Regarding the first quote you made, read it along with Surya's post, something black in the lentils onlee!

I think, the IA has a decent gun in the INSAS and need not replace it in the short run. They have time of 8-10 yrs, before replacement would start. They should sit down with DRDO & look into ballistics in our conditions, from the thin air of the Himalayas to the jungles of north east, hot desert of the thar and see what type of caliber would work for us the best. Something which would provide us good performance across the board. Also what type of requirement are needed for the gun. Sit down get through all this and come up with our own solution. It maybe 5.56mm or 7.62 mm or some intermediate caliber. But it would something that fits our requirements. Then with our previous experience with INSAS, we can come up with a new gun in 2-3 years.

bmallick, I believe the INSAS was the result of this exercise you mention above. 5.56 was the standard the IA had asked for.

Yes INSAS was the result of a similar exercise in the 80's. Even now the army can start a fresh exercise on the need for tomorrow. A gun designed around the average indian soldier would make for a better fit for the IA, than a gun designed by outsiders whose ergonomics are not the best fit for the average indian soldier.

Choose a caliber taking into account the average indian soldiers ability& arm strength to handle full auto. The average distance that he needs to engage enemy at and the average enemy soldier that he is going to face. Then design a gun family around that caliber, taking into mind average indian soldiers ergonomic requirement.

Considering we operated FN-FAL or Ishapore variant for more then 3 decade after its induction , why cant we use INSAS for much longer with suitable upgrades if required a 7.62 variant of INSAS with Picatani rails , scope and other ding dong , why the rush to buy new types ?

Maybe I am wrong, but have you guys ever visited a Jewellery store in India at a time when a valued and really wealthy customer walks in with family in tow? You know the sort of guy who places buys a 5 lakh piece "just like that" and a crore is the norm for family weddings? I mean the flurry in the shop and the fawning as palpable.

I get the feeling that India is doing that on the international scene. They are sending out requests for some really fine jewellery to see what the world has to offer. It does not necessarily mean that they will buy.

Just a very simplistic description of "bullpup". It is a rearrangement of the basic rifle components--stock, pistol grip, chamber, barrel, magazine, forestock--to produce a compact weapon.

Think Bmallick and Marut are right, having interchangable rifle doesn't mean evryone will change or have capability/need to change barrels at all time. A rifle like this will give all the soldiers an ability to change caliber as per his assigned roll (as, if and when needed) without having to ask for another rifle. This way all the soilders will have a rifel (and training) with both barrels and army had to buy only a few extra barrels for each section/company. A rifel like this would allow reconfiguration of every section/group/company into a mixed caliber force, to tackle threats more effectively.

Only DDM can come up with suggestions that each soldier would carry two barrels and ammunition for both barrels at all time.

The question here is not the validity/advantages of the concept but what would be the trade offs in terms of cost, performance, reliability and logistics as compared to a simple single barrel assualt rifel. Is the technology now matured enough for practical large scale deployment.

Thanks. Great illustrative picture.

But it also means extra parts inventory, more maintenance issues and increased wear and tear at the joint where the interchangeable barrel is attached. The only question is whether the trade-off will be worth it in a combat situation.

I think that INSAS is a fine design but now needs to be updated. I posted a long post sometime back that it is very near to Sig which is considered to be one of the best rifles (also used by NSG) and re-designing the upward hinge cover to lower receiver fall away opening will make the rifle contemporary.

Also these change caliber thingie has been a practical failure till date all over the world. Army is playing its 155mm game all over again. Don’t let DRDO move forward while coming up unrealistic specifications for the weapon.

Yup, that is the biggest concern. Extra baggage adding further to the woes of the IA staff officers planning logistics. Taking into consideration that one of our frontiers is a long Mountain range, with small pony trails leading to the forward posts & troops, it would make sense to keep the logistic baggage as simple & small as possible. Some would say we are already taking care of lot of things during current movement of stuff, why not a a few small things like extra rifle parts, barrels, & different ammos. Well the problem is that, yes these are really small sized stuff, but one which would be running around in the highest numbers, because rifle is the most numerous item in any Army.

Hence before you know it, the small parts would take up loads of space in your VIP/Samsonite case and the airline weight limits would mean that you pay up for it through your nose .

KISS has always been a great way to go and never looses its charm & utility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kel-Tec_RFB

something to munch over

A Question.

The higher caliber rounds such as 7.62x 51, have greater stopping power and greater energy to penetrate body armour. However they have much greater recoil, hence are really really difficult to control in full auto mode. The bull-pup designed gun is much easier to control because a) the CG can be better balanced around the grip, hence lower stress on the hand, b) because it is invariably smaller in length, the guns escaping gases have a much smaller moment arm to work on. So would a 7.62x51 round on a bull-pup gun be easier to control in full auto mode.

> These are also the most widely available ammo in the world and can be sourced unhindered by arm-twisting

I think we had better make arrangements to produce all caliber of ammo locally. it would be very worrying if we need to import small arms ammo for the army!

+1.

Depending on imports during war for basic things like ammo is fraught with grave risks. What if the ship carrying ammo is sunk by enemy subs. We call the enemy and say we need to take a break and resume again once we get our ammo. Ammo & arty shell I believe are the most consumed of all war resources, hence their local production at high volumes is a must.

How about a "Make your own gun" thread in line with similar "make your own plane and war" threads.

- Mike.

^^Not sure why so much excitement is generated everytime an RFP/Tender comes out. RFP/Tender is the start of an evaluation process, and does not contain any user commitment to procure. 90% of the time RFPs are used to evaluate technologies and concepts.

Operationally, no one is going to lug two sets of kits.

The concept of interchangeable parts could be useful in Kashmir, where most-of-the-time-scenario is terrorist hunting, for which 7.62 mm is the ideal caliber. The enemy is hidden, and once located and identified, needs to be taken out with a heavy shot, before he throws his grenade and merges with the general populace.

However, in the event of a rapid escalation to a once-in-a-while-scenario of conventional war facing regular PA, and soldiers need to carry additional rounds, 5.56 mm is the ideal caliber. The enemy is in the open & numerous, and one needs more rounds.

Suppose, if the situation rapidly escalated from most-of-the-time to once-in-a-while, some options would be -
1. Shipping more 7.62 ammo to account for higher expenditure, but soldiers have to lug heavier weights
2. Shpping 5.56 mm rifles and ammo, but soldiers are not used to it, and sufficient time may not be available for familiarization.
3. Rush new units, but they may not be familiar with the terrain/situation or acclimatized

4. In the event the firearm is designed to switch calibers, then familiarization time is reduced because of the commonality of the weapon system, and only new ammo needs to be switched.

Of course, this is my speculation of the rationale behind this concept & rfp, and not the official line of thinking.

was the RFP sent only to 32 EU companies? wow big mistake, hardly any modern multicaliber guns coming out of EU. All the good stuff is in the US. SCAR, HK416 some SIG weapons are the only EU rifles worthy of sitting on the high table.


http://xcr.robarm.com/products.php

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firear ... s/ACR.aspx

http://www.barrett.net/firearms/rec7

http://www.alexanderarms.com/

http://www.lwrci.com/c-3-rifles.aspx

http://www.knightarmco.com/guns.html

it has to be seen how many of such arms are in mass deployment mode with user armies. police and SF imo are not a good example, because rough use in police work is much less than army and SF tend to have first rate care practices and lots of spares.

some of the cool looking US arms are likely used by police , gun enthusiasts and blackwater contractor types

Quite a few points to be addressed:

1. Multi-caliber rifles are designed to have about 80-90% components the same between them. Hence logistics of these rifle parts for given section/platoon/company will be simplified. The special parts will be fewer and hence more manageable. Basically your inventory will be simplified even if the number of pieces isn't decreased by much.

2. Maintainence for these rifles will be easier since the construction will be modular, making it easy to take it apart and put it back together. The barrel change will definitely impact the joint, but the extent will depend on the frequency of the barrel change. It's not like they will be changing barrels everyday...It will depend on the usage by the forces.

3. The mix of diff calibers will still be maintained in the unit hence the ammo supply chain is likely to remain unaffected for most part.

4. Ammo imports during war are ofcourse fraught with danger. But what about stocking up prior to war? or if your production facilities have a snafu and output is reduced alarmingly? Just to remind ourselves, after the INSAS was adopted by IA we imported 50 million (or was it 5 million) rounds of 5.56 NATO ammo from South Africa since we didn't have adequate production facilities. In times of need, usage of a widespread ammo caliber will reduce the room for arm twisting by potential suppliers.

Lastly, I agree with Shiv & tsarkar that we are just testing the waters on the available technology in the market. These guns will not see the light of the day in IA for another 5-7 years. My only worry is the single gun which meets all the specs listed in the RFP.

Folks I am trying to make sense of a couple of things. We have had discussions about 5.56 versus 7.62 in the past and looking at Wiki - the 7.62 round is over twice the weight of the 5.56 mm round. This is all generally out of my range of awareness or experience.

Technically, at a given velocity, the 7.72 mm will have twice the kinetic energy at any given range. Or alternatively, the 7.62 mm round will have he same KE as te 5.56 at nearly double the range.

The same KE theoretically means same killing power. If a 5.56 mm bullet can penetrate something at 200 meters, the 7.62 mm should be able to do that at 400m. But accuracy at 400 meters is far less than at 200 meters simply because targets are much smaller. So if one is talking about killing power at 400-500 meters one is talking about random bullets that hit a target who walks into a wall of lead.

But deliberate aimed fire at 150-200 meters should be just as lethal with 5.56 and Wiki seems to indicate that. But I am sure soldiers may feel that 7.72 is more effective for 2 reasons. One is the complaint that Taliban were able to lay down effective 7.62 mm fire against NATO from ranges at which NATO was unable to retaliate with 5.56.

Secondly there may be an "intermediate class" of targets such as soft skinned vehicles which are more effectively "killed" at longer ranges by 7.62 than 5.56.

In other words, in theory, a group of men with 7.62 mm rifles should be able to "sterilize" a zone (of men and lightly armored targets) maybe 300-400 meters away, while a similar group with 5.56 would be able to do that only about 200 meters away. But all this breaks down if either side has just one heavy caliber weapon. If the 5.56 carrying men also have a two man team carrying a 7.62 mm heavy machine gun, they have the firepower to take out targets at 300-400 meters as well as extra ammunition to use when the battle is closer at 150-200 meters. No?

shiv

I believe the extra killing power it is about the shock imparted to the body by the 7.62 mm round. the 5.56 may punch through the body with less shock and trauma transmitted to body while the 7.62 may not and impart more shock and trauma dropping the body.

Surya the Wiki link I got says that the 5.56 actually causes the same damage because it behaves differently after hitting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

Shiv
right and IMO it
seems to be the diff between theory and some lab tests with animals shot vs what soldiers see in the actual battlefield.

head and chest shots on targets other then in CQB may be tough.

it may be perception but it seems to be consistent across diff armies and battlefield

maybe best to ask someone who has been hit by both 5.56 and 7.62 mm in roughly the same scenarios and ask how the effects were different