Small Arms Thread

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 03 Apr 2011 21:56

I don't know if this has already been posted in this thread, but here is an excellent resource for 'all things gun'...

http://world.guns.ru/main-e.htm

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 08 Apr 2011 03:53

All 7.62 mm ammo isn't alike. The M-14 uses the 7.62X51mm NATO round (also used by the FN-FAL) which is bigger and heavier than the Russian 7.62X39mm round fired by the AK-47 and this new Trichy rifle.
My understanding is:
7.62X51 mm - Long range but uncontrollable recoil in auto-fire mode
7.62X39 mm - Shorter range but controllable at high rates of fire.

7.62 x51 Nato or the 0.308 was traditionally a rifle round (bolt action).. when you put a bolt action rifle round in a assault rifle it becomes difficult to control it .... FN FAL in british army in falkland wars was configured to fire semi automatic because it was not possible to control a big round in auto fire...

Russians literally chopped of 7.6 x 51 round into a smaller length get certain control because any caliber smaller than 0.3 inch bore with standard gunpowder charge has very poor stopping power at 500+ yards, so 7.62 fit the bill.

Assault rifle caliber is tricky to decide ... it has to be an optimal trade off between Range, Ballistics, Stopping Power ease of manufacturing and availability.

5.56 Nato / 0.223 is a good bore for shooting at range of 350-400 yards.. beyond which it starts loosing momentum.. its optimal ballistic fragmentation is also at 100- 400 yard range.

depending on mission requirement the rifle should be chosen ... 9mm x19, 5.56, 7.62, 30.06, .338, 0.50bmg are all very lethal when used according to the directions given with it ... but if you want one round that does it all ... it will be near to impossible.

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Apr 2011 10:46

Buying a 9mm carbine made sense when the main infantry weapon was 7.62mmx51 SLR rifle which is long, heavy and unweildy. With INSAS replacing SLR, the role of 9mm carbine is minimal or non-existant. It is hence an artificial demand created for extraneous benefits.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Apr 2011 19:45

^^^
???

koti · Post by **koti** » 09 Apr 2011 22:09

vic wrote:Buying a 9mm carbine made sense when the main infantry weapon was 7.62mmx51 SLR rifle which is long, heavy and unweildy. With INSAS replacing SLR, the role of 9mm carbine is minimal or non-existant. It is hence an artificial demand created for extraneous benefits.

Vic ji,
Do you mean 9mm round's significance or is it the significance of 9mm SMG/Carbines ?

I differ with your view for both conditions by the way.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Apr 2011 22:39

Vic the Sten was designed to take advantage of the immense 9mm rounds captured from Nazi Germany. Later it took a life of its own.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 10 Apr 2011 06:33

^^^
Actually sir, the 9x19 mm. parabellum cartridge was introduced in 1902. While it was heavily used by the Germans in WW-I, it became popular with many other countries after the end of WW-I. What the Sten copied was the magazine of the German MP-28, so that captured German magazines could be reused with the Sten. Unfortunately, the MP-28 magazine had some defects in the design. It was a staggered magazine layout, but unlike the other staggered magazines of the day (e.g. the tommy gun), the magazine itself tapered towards the open end to a single column feed, which is why dirt in this area could cause failure to feed. While the MP-28 didn't have this issue so much because it was a well-built quality weapon, the Sten was designed to be cheaply made and mass produced and therefore, any bending of the magazine lips could cause jamming issues.

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Apr 2011 07:02

The point is what is the role of 9mm carbines "today" in para military forces? Are they needed? Is most of the need better served by INSAS & A-7s? Is it an artificial requirement?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 10 Apr 2011 13:33

Almost all armed forces/ police around the world equip their soldiers/cops with some numbers of pistol round firing hand gun-carbine combo along with the standard rifle. I suppose the situation would have been different had it been an "artificial requirement".

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Apr 2011 20:14

Which armed force of which nation has orderd around 35,000+ 9mm carbines after changing over to 5.56mm caliber?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Apr 2011 21:09

I once spoke to two guys - one wielding an INSAS and another a 9 mm (that ancient one from WW2) and asked what use is the latter. He said that the 9 mm was for putting a burst of fire at close quarters - with the rounds being effective up to only 200 meters. Also it is easy to carry and fire from an enclosed space such as a car. So sentry duty at gates and entrances or VIP security guys would get the 9 mm carbine. The INSAS is more of an assault rifle - and is effective and accurate up to longer ranges.

However I claim no expertise in small arms. I have a photo of that 9 mm carbine from the 1965 war. Need to see if I can dig it up.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 10 Apr 2011 22:31

The 9mm is for close quarter battle. Originally used by storm troppers who would storm trenches. They needed something not as piddly as pistols and revolvers and not as unwieldy as a full blown assault rifle. To compensate for the lower-powered rounds, (higher powered and heavier rounds would cause too much recoil and muzzle flash with the propellant not getting completely burned by the time the bullet exited the barrel) they had a very high rate of fire.

The 9mm carbines started finding favor with VIP protection types who needed to fire at short range and mount/dismount from vehicles. At various times it was also issued as a secondary weapon to artillery/mortar/tank crews.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 11 Apr 2011 00:23

shiv wrote:He said that the 9 mm was for putting a burst of fire at close quarters - with the rounds being effective up to only 200 meters.

Actually the 9mm parabellum rounds are typically 400% dead on target upto 100m, not 200m. The use of 9mm rounds also came about because you can get large mag capacity for small weapons. But people are moving away from them especially in places like Amirkhan where body armour is widely available to civilians. In India, in the pics one can see the SPG using the FN P90 for this reason.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 11 Apr 2011 02:50

vic wrote:Which armed force of which nation has orderd around 35,000+ 9mm carbines after changing over to 5.56mm caliber?

List of MP5 Users
Lots of the countries in this list also use 5.56 NATO for their military, but continue to use the MP5.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Apr 2011 06:02

Raja Bose wrote:In India, in the pics one can see the SPG using the FN P90 for this reason.

My auntie tells me this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90

The P90 was designed to have a length no greater than a man's shoulder width, to allow it to be easily carried and maneuvered in tight spaces, such as the inside of an armored vehicle.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Apr 2011 07:23

shiv wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:In India, in the pics one can see the SPG using the FN P90 for this reason.
My auntie tells me this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90
The P90 was designed to have a length no greater than a man's shoulder width, to allow it to be easily carried and maneuvered in tight spaces, such as the inside of an armored vehicle.

Shiv saar, I think what Bosemullah is talking about is the 5.7X28mm ammo used by the P90, which is supposedly good against Kevlar body armor.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 11 Apr 2011 08:47

shiv saar, That's the same reason why P90 is used by bodyguards and special forces/HRT types.

But in this context I was referring to its ammo which can penetrate modern body armour but still ensure a really compact weapon.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Apr 2011 09:06

Point taken Raja Bose and nachiket, but the fact is compact size is what seemed to keep the 9 mm carbine going despite the induction of INSAS. This was after all the question that was asked:

vic wrote:The point is what is the role of 9mm carbines "today" in para military forces? Are they needed? Is most of the need better served by INSAS & A-7s? Is it an artificial requirement?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 11 Apr 2011 09:14

Exactly. The 9mm used to cater to the requirement of having assault weapons which can carry a punch with good magazine capacity but are not full blown assault rifles in size. The new generation like the MP7 or P90 do the same while also being able to penetrate body armour effectively, which the 9mm rounds cannot. Speaking of lack of penetration, the other extreme would be those tungsten tipped rounds (Green Tip?) which sooper-dooper Delta force used against the Somalis in 1993 except that they would penetrate right through the body leaving the skinny Somalis standing and fighting unless it somehow hit a vital organ.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 11 Apr 2011 12:44

CQB' requirement for para forces in peace time and in emergency would differ i guess... CQB in peace time is mostly urban or jungle warfare against mostly insurgents usually not having anti ballistic vests. 9mm SMG would perform extremely well in those conditions.

CQB's in wartime would extend to trench/sangars and bunker clearance missions, in that case when you come up against infantry soldiers, 5.56 carbine or the 7.62 x 39 carbine would be the preferred caliber. SMG's like the p90 lack melee attributes which soldiers do depend heavily in case of entering bunkers and trenches

I know that 5.56 is the favored round of indian military for insas, but IMO it would not be feasible to use a 5.56 nato round post 2015, by that time pakistani infantry would have standardized ballistic armour. I think the 30-06 caliber is an excellent caliber to be mated to assault rifles, Its range is comparable to 7.62 nato round and it shoots flat at the same 750 yards retaining its stopping power. I see the 30-06 round to be a very optimal trade-off between stopping power, weight, and kick.

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 Apr 2011 13:38

Speaking fo 9mm.
Few days ago, we've seen the Punjab police armed with MP7.

For the cricket match I guess. It is not a n MP7 actually... It is Brugger Thomet MP9....
I've founf it being discussed in the other site.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 12 Apr 2011 11:42

Sandeep_ghosh wrote: I know that 5.56 is the favored round of indian military for insas, but IMO it would not be feasible to use a 5.56 nato round post 2015, by that time pakistani infantry would have standardized ballistic armour. I think the 30-06 caliber is an excellent caliber to be mated to assault rifles, Its range is comparable to 7.62 nato round and it shoots flat at the same 750 yards retaining its stopping power. I see the 30-06 round to be a very optimal trade-off between stopping power, weight, and kick.

You forget that the weight of the .30-06 round (and 7.62x51 mm. NATO as well) is the reason why US and NATO switched to 5.56x45 mm. round in the first place. They wanted the average infantryman to carry more cartridges and a .30-06 weighs approx. 2x to 3x the weight of a 5.56x45 mm. NATO.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 12 Apr 2011 14:08

You forget that the weight of the .30-06 round (and 7.62x51 mm. NATO as well) is the reason why US and NATO switched to 5.56x45 mm. round in the first place. They wanted the average infantryman to carry more cartridges and a .30-06 weighs approx. 2x to 3x the weight of a 5.56x45 mm. NATO.

Agreed ... 5.56/.223 was an excellent innovation when it was conceived, Primary concern with 5.56 Nato is it's poor characteristics against ballistic armor and poor stopping power. With advent of carbon composites and polymers weight of the weapon systems have reduced. logistic support has increased substantially ,hence i think it will be feasible to use a heavier round in conventional warfare and lighter bullet in peacekeeping and anti-insurgency operations.

Form of enemy has evolved so the tools to tackle them have to evolve as well.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 12 Apr 2011 18:30

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:Form of enemy has evolved so the tools to tackle them have to evolve as well.

The opposition has not evolved significantly: 5.56 mm NATO, 5.45 mm RU and 5.8 mm Chinese are all approximately the variations on the same theme. The first two have been produced in tens of billions and stocked up (and the Chinese aren't far behind); more continues to be produced daily. These will be around for at least another 15 years. Expect most advances to be made in optics and assisted sighting, and the line blurred between bullets and shot-grenades.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2011 20:18

the pakis have made some smart moves in the past like setting up a license factory of G3 and MP3 from H&K.

what if they setup a line to churn out the latest greatest 'dyneema' or whatever light body armour or get given that as baksheesh ? the chinese are also coming along and might either clone such products or innovate - either way they have no issues in producing such items in the millions.

would the 5.56mm round hack it then ? I think that was Sandeep's q.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 12 Apr 2011 21:14

^^^You need amirkhan SF's custom Green Tip round saar then its like killing 10 pakis with 1 bullet

BTW pakis also license produce MP5s.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 12 Apr 2011 23:10

Singha wrote:would the 5.56mm round hack it then ? I think that was Sandeep's q.

Yes, it will hack on for a while. Not much will change unless/until one of the larger powers start inducting a significantly revolutionary family of small-arms. The Paks bought G3s after India inducted FALs*; India inducted FALs after the debacle of 1962 (facing PLA SKSs and Type-56s; the Chinese had had their own, umm, experiences during Korean War against the US.

* I'll argue that the FAL was better suited for subcontinental warfare than G3 (but less so than AKMs). If FAL = Right Arm of the Free World... that makes G3 the Left Arm, no? OK, I won't say any more.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Apr 2011 23:14

The 5.56mm round was developed for large fights at close distance for a NATO-Warasw pact rumble or even counter insurgency in jungles of Asia. However recent counter insurgency actions need lethal bullet at longer ranges.
IOW the situation has changed and hence the doubts.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Apr 2011 23:27

but imo a error to delete the FAL semi auto mode; a mistake now corrected in INSAS.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Apr 2011 23:32

Singha wrote:but imo a error to delete the FAL semi auto mode; a mistake now corrected in INSAS.

What do you mean saar? I thought the FAL in Indian service was only semi-auto, with the full-auto mode removed. And I don't think the new INSAS with the pure full-auto mode (no 3 round burst) is actually in service with the IA.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 12 Apr 2011 23:36

ramana wrote:The 5.56mm round was developed for large fights at close distance for a NATO-Warasw pact rumble or even counter insurgency in jungles of Asia. However recent counter insurgency actions need lethal bullet at longer ranges.
IOW the situation has changed and hence the doubts.

Ramana, some US soldiers have been complaining about it from the very beginning along the same lines (in Vietnam) but that hasn't affected the decision to continue producing it. In fact India was almost 20 years into one insurgency after another (Nagaland, Punjab, Sri Lanka) when it made a conscious choice (in late 1980s) to adopt the 5.56mm (and abandoned the longer and heavier 7.62x51mm) at individual level. The situation hasn't changed; what has changed is that this kind of discussion has moved out of barracks and letters-to-editor to the Internet. The decision won't change merely on the basis of cyber chatter; at least, it shouldn't.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Apr 2011 23:46

I thought Indian decision was ease of logistics of a common round across a range of weapons.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2011 06:05

ParGha wrote:
ramana wrote:The 5.56mm round was developed for large fights at close distance for a NATO-Warasw pact rumble or even counter insurgency in jungles of Asia. However recent counter insurgency actions need lethal bullet at longer ranges.
IOW the situation has changed and hence the doubts.
Ramana, some US soldiers have been complaining about it from the very beginning along the same lines (in Vietnam) but that hasn't affected the decision to continue producing it. In fact India was almost 20 years into one insurgency after another (Nagaland, Punjab, Sri Lanka) when it made a conscious choice (in late 1980s) to adopt the 5.56mm (and abandoned the longer and heavier 7.62x51mm) at individual level. The situation hasn't changed; what has changed is that this kind of discussion has moved out of barracks and letters-to-editor to the Internet. The decision won't change merely on the basis of cyber chatter; at least, it shouldn't.

The impression I got from cyber-chatter (on here and elsewhere some years ago) was that in Afghanistan the Talibunnies were able to put down effective fire against NATO from 600+ yards with 7.62 mm AK 47s while the NATO troops were unable to engage them at those ranges with their 5.56 mm. I don't know enough about battle to say if shooting wild at extreme ranges counts as a good tactic. I would have thought that this kind of situation would call for a heavy caliber machine gun to pin down those Talibs at 1000 yards.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 13 Apr 2011 06:35

The opposition has not evolved significantly: 5.56 mm NATO, 5.45 mm RU and 5.8 mm Chinese are all approximately the variations on the same theme. The first two have been produced in tens of billions and stocked up (and the Chinese aren't far behind); more continues to be produced daily. These will be around for at least another 15 years. Expect most advances to be made in optics and assisted sighting, and the line blurred between bullets and shot-grenades.

If infantry is using optics , that means the range of engagement would be significantly more than 300 yards and more accurate single shots will be fired instead of spray and pray.
5.56 round will drop around 1.75 inches beyond 400 yards. 5.56 round is very similar to .222 (triple deuces) with longer case, originally envisaged as a varmint hunting caliber. 5.56 nato round lacks the necessary power to overcome ballistic armour and bleeds energy for any shot above aprox 400 yards. It is a very effective round in 100-350 yards and will shoot flat with almost no correction in sights needed , but longer range engagements wont be feasible on 5.56.

Often US army examples are given for the 5.56 round usage but US armed forces faced trouble in vietnam and somalia where the enemy would look right back at the soldier after getting shot, and still manage to return fire.

I would like to see atleast an itermediate round or different charge with higher power on the insas

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Apr 2011 06:54

Sandeep_ghosh wrote: different charge with higher power on the insas

Unless I am mistaken - this is exactly what was demanded of the INSAS and was implemented. It was discussed on here - and range and stopping power were some of the points discussed about the INSAS on these fora as part of the "internet chatter" and that the army had asked for a change and that new, higher power rounds were being procured/produced. I don;t have any details or links.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 13 Apr 2011 07:00

shiv wrote:The impression I got from cyber-chatter (on here and elsewhere some years ago) was that in Afghanistan the Talibunnies were able to put down effective fire against NATO from 600+ yards with 7.62 mm AK 47s while the NATO troops were unable to engage them at those ranges with their 5.56 mm. I don't know enough about battle to say if shooting wild at extreme ranges counts as a good tactic. I would have thought that this kind of situation would call for a heavy caliber machine gun to pin down those Talibs at 1000 yards.

Effective fire at 600 yards is highly unlikely with 7.62x39mm (AK-47 rounds); especially unlikely with the Talibs. Their typical CQB tactic is to approach a checkpoint within 30-40 yards with the weapons concealed and themselves blending in with civil population, then open fire and attempt to overrun the checkpoint. Firefights at greater than 200 yards usually means they are using 7.62x54R rifles and machine guns (or even old .303s) to simply harass the ISAF/ANA/ANP forces.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 13 Apr 2011 08:37

ParGha wrote:Effective fire at 600 yards is highly unlikely with 7.62x39mm (AK-47 rounds); especially unlikely with the Talibs.

contrary to popular belief, Ak's can be pretty accurate at 600-700 yards at semi-auto mode

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Apr 2011 09:06

RE Shiv

9mm is practically effective only till 25-50m and not 200m. Ask any infantry guy and he wil tell you that the bullet is heavy and slow, starts falling/curving after 20-30m only. Shooting at a range is different.

AKs are good for point targets only till 100m though for area targets they will go till 400m. Now, it seems you are golfer, try aiming your theoratical rifle/golf club at 600m target and you will know the meaning of spray and pray.

Internet chatter is by gun enthus, who never like anything less than Barrett 12.7x99.

5.56mm shoots flat, so good upto 300-400m. With optics/marksman even upto 600-800m

7.62x51 also shoots flat, so good upto 600-1000m

Now after 300-400m, even very good soldiers cannot hit anything. DMRs may be good for say 400-600m and snipers say 500-700m. These are indicative practical figures. Theories and one off news items are different.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 13 Apr 2011 12:24

I am really confused by the general opinion here that AK-47 is inaccurate beyond 100m.

I have never heard anyone complain about AK-47's accuracy. Has anyone else ever come across any grievance from a IA soldier regarding this weapon's accuracy?

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 13 Apr 2011 13:52

vic wrote:RE Shiv

9mm is practically effective only till 25-50m and not 200m. Ask any infantry guy and he wil tell you that the bullet is heavy and slow, starts falling/curving after 20-30m only. Shooting at a range is different.

I agree,

AKs are good for point targets only till 100m though for area targets they will go till 400m. Now, it seems you are golfer, try aiming your theoratical rifle/golf club at 600m target and you will know the meaning of spray and pray.

I have never shot AK's but i have shot the chinese SKS and it shoots flat upto 400 yds with minimum correction, If you are a good shot you can get 5 inch spacing for ten rounds 450 yds with a scope. I am assuming same can be achieved with the AK in semi auto option.

5.56mm shoots flat, so good upto 300-400m. With optics/marksman even upto 600-800m

7.62x51 also shoots flat, so good upto 600-1000m

7.62 x 51 starts dropping heavily beyond 600 yds, the heavier round curves pretty drastically beyond 600 yds, I have never shot this round beyond 650 with any consistent spacing, 1000 yds is more of special sniper type rounds like the lapua 0.338

Now after 300-400m, even very good soldiers cannot hit anything. DMRs may be good for say 400-600m and snipers say 500-700m. These are indicative practical figures. Theories and one off news items are different.

I completely agree to the above statement, under pressure situation its very difficult to make long range shots