Small Arms Thread

[Aditya_V]

And if a Rfilr cannot be changed on the feild, Definately thee Army can keep

1) an AKM

2) AN Insas

3) A FN FAL

per soldier, the cost of above 3 rifles will be cheeaper than a multicaliber rifle? Soldiers based on COIN, area of operation can be issued thier induvidual rifle, while thier respective rifles can be stored maintained

[Hari Sud]

As I said in another thread that Indian Army is a spoiled bunch. It does not admit to its faults. To cover their mistake they write one after other funny GSQL requirements.

[Victor]

I support swadeshi to the hilt. It is painful to see us so dependent on foreigners, even small countries like Singapore and South Africa, for rifles and pistols that we should easily make ourselves. But everybody is ignoring the elephant in the room: Why do we not allow private players to make guns and compete for army requirements?

What is it that keeps us fully and bull-headedly dependent only on our PSUs, knowing that no way in hell can they or do they represent the sum total of Indian talent and capability in weapons design and manufacture? If we can figure this out, we will get all the answers.

Blaming the army and exonerating the PSUs is as pointless and counterproductive as blaming the PSUs and exonerating the army. The problem is far more serious and dangerous than this simple equation.

[Mihir]

Private initiative, while always welcome, is no panacea for indigenous development. And ultimately, whether to allow private players to make guns or not is a decision that the political leadership will have to make.

The absence of a clear mandate for private players to participate in military R&D is not enough reason for the Army to practically reject DPSU products without a single trial and purchase foreign ones.

[Victor]

Private initiative, while always welcome, is no panacea for indigenous development.

Are Indian private companies not indigenous? What am I missing?

And ultimately, whether to allow private players to make guns or not is a decision that the political leadership will have to make.

Are you serious? Who is responsible?

...not enough reason for the Army to practically reject DPSU products without a single trial and purchase foreign ones.

When did this happen? And if it did, why did the RM say/do nothing? What is his mandate? Is he not the boss of the army chief?

[Mihir]

Are Indian private companies not indigenous? What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that private companies won't necessarily develop weapons faster than government agencies did.

Are you serious? Who is responsible?

I don't even understand that question. And yes, I'm very serious.

...not enough reason for the Army to practically reject DPSU products without a single trial and purchase foreign ones.

When did this happen? And if it did, why did the RM say/do nothing? What is his mandate? Is he not the boss of the army chief?

See [url="http://www.janes.com/article/33561/defe ... fle-trials"]this report[/rul]. Do you see the MCIWS competing in the trials? Do you see the Army postponing the trials to see if MCIWS ends up meeting their requirement?

[srai]

Private initiative, while always welcome, is no panacea for indigenous development.

Are Indian private companies not indigenous? What am I missing?

...

The term "indigenous" has different connotation for different groups. Some people use the term for assembled products out of imported kits or licensed manufacture (with or without TOT). Others mean R&D locally. And then still others somewhere in between the two.

At this stage in the defense sector most of the Indian private companies (which I am assuming you mean large vertical integrators like TATA, Reliance, Mahendra) are not R&D centric but more focused on JV with experienced foreign patner. This means they are more of an assembler rather than innovators. For innovation in defense, private companies need 70-80% of the R&D costs being paid by the government as these are time consuming and costly exercise without any guarantee of future orders.

On the other note, in case you didn't know, there are thousands of private SME (Small-Medium Enterprises) already integrated to the supply chain of large public defense enterprises, like HAL and OFB, delivering parts and raw materials.

[Paul]

[youtube]ndBcJhQuafU#t=48[/youtube]

Can the MCIWS survive the mudbath and keep firing like the Tavor and HK 417?

[Victor]

I don't even understand that question. And yes, I'm very serious.

Sorry, I misread your previous response. My bad. Yes, it is a decision that the politicians can make and it is a total mystery why they haven't so far. Do they think competition is bad or that Indian companies outside the PSUs are totally inept?

See this report. Do you see the MCIWS competing in the trials? Do you see the Army postponing the trials to see if MCIWS ends up meeting their requirement?

This is simply a list of 4 foreign rifles that are to enter trials but that doesn't mean MCIWS won't be trialed at all. They could very well test it and declare it a dud if they really have no intention of accepting it so why would they open themselves to criticism by leaving it out? In fact Wiki says it is to be in army trials around now. I don't expect IA to make serious concessions on performance but if it is close to the foreign rifles, it will be chosen. MCIWS looks good but that's obviously not enough.

[Victor]

The term "indigenous" has different connotation for different groups...

This is an issue only because India may not have bothered to define it as it has been in other countries.

For innovation in defense, private companies need 70-80% of the R&D costs being paid by the government as these are time consuming and costly exercise without any guarantee of future orders.

So? That's how it is done in the advanced MIC countries. Is it not in India's interest to develop a broad and deep MIC and should we not aspire to it?

On the other note, in case you didn't know, there are thousands of private SME (Small-Medium Enterprises) already integrated to the supply chain of large public defense enterprises, like HAL and OFB, delivering parts and raw materials.

This is not the kind of "privatization" being referred to. We need a multi-lane highway, a situation where a Tata or Reliance also run their own projects and send sub-contract parts to HAL and OFB.

[ArmenT]

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.

OFB manufacturing quality has also been an issue sir. If it weren't so, you wouldn't hear of armorers having to tinker with brand new rifles straight from OFB, to smoothen their actions. And these issues were showing up even as late as 2011 (don't know if it is still happening). Design of the rifle is not bad, by all accounts. Manufacturing, on the other hand, has much scope for improvement.

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.

They weren't the only ones, as you can see by this large list of countries here. By the way, the main reason for dropping 7.62 NATO over 5.56 NATO was because the 5.56 NATO was just as effective at average combat ranges in Korea and Vietnam and weighed 50% less, thereby allowing the soldier to carry more ammunition. Before they switched to 5.56, standard US infantry man load was 100 rounds of 7.62 NATO. After the switch, standard infantryman load was 210 rounds of 5.56 NATO. Extra bonuses: the overall rifle was lighter and the recoil of the 5.56 NATO was a lot easier to manage as well.

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.

The first M16s and M16A1s also fired in full automatic mode. The jamming problem was primarily caused by changing the composition of the propellant to a cheaper version, after the rifle had been completely tested with a different propellant in the cartridge. The newer propellant burned dirtier and had higher pressures, which caused the jams. After they figured out the issue, chrome plated some key parts and issued cleaning kits, the problems were fixed. In fact, a survey in early 1968 showed that most soldiers were happy with the M16 (out of 2100 soldiers surveyed, only 38 wanted something else and out of those 38, 35 of them wanted the CAR-15, the carbine version of the M16). Incidentally, there is no plunger, but there is a forward assist lever and that was actually one of the features insisted on by the US army to be required, before they would even accept the weapon. Only the US air force decided to accept it without the forward assist and therefore only the early M16 models have no assist.

By the way, speaking of the AK-47, it might interest you to know that the AK-47 wasn't widely issued to Soviet troops either. Instead, most of them were issued the Simonov designed SKS, because the AK-47 was expensive, took too long to produce and wasn't all that reliable in the beginning. This was the situation until 1959, when the AKM was developed (12 years after the AK-47!) and the AKM was the one that went into general use replacing the SKS, not the AK-47.

One more interesting thing to note is that after the M16 was issued to US forces, the Soviets switched from using AKMs to AK-74 (which they still use to this day) shortly thereafter. Guess what?? The AK-74 uses an even smaller bullet than the M16.

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.

Beyond about 400 meters, it is pretty hard to hit the target using standard iron sights. And I'd like to see a report where Indian soldiers were complaining that they were outranged by the Pakis.

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.

Forget about the bit about the Russians objecting, the AK-47 clones made by OFB (the A7) weren't as reliable in the first place. Yes, AKs made by different manufacturers have differing build qualities. Russian and Chinese models are reputedly the best, followed by Polish, Bulgarian, Hungarian etc. OFB was having QC issues and theirs wasn't apparently as reliable (I'm going by the word of a person who had actually evaluated a few of OFB's A7 version). The A7s were rejected by IA well before the Russian objection. The Bulgarian ones were not only cheaper, they were more reliable as well. Incidentally, Bulgys have a fairly decent reputation world wide -- they are not the best, but they're pretty acceptable quality.

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.

No one is expecting to change calibers in the middle of a battle.

[Rahul M]

one of the immediate reasons for dumping the SLR was our IPKF experience. the semi auto action, long barrel and heavy wt was often a fatal combination against AK-47 armed LTTE cadres.

so, it was indeed highly stupid to dump the FN FAL, if getting your own soldiers killed is the bright idea.

[viktor]

It might sound OT, but major players in industry like Jindal Steel have license for manufacturing or importing parts of firearms. There is a lot of potential for domestic firearms industry not only for in military/CPMF but also in civilian firearms segment. Those of you who purchased civilian IOF firearms would know the pain. Civilian firearms market offer huge volume as well as margins due to ban on import of civilian firearms. Due to that even an old imported firearm fetches crazy prices. E.g. Smith & Wesson revolver will sell around 6 lakh while Beretta Cheetah goes around for 5.5 lakh. IOF weapons on the other hand are fraction of the cost. Of course there is difference in quality and tuning. But such high prices can't be justified except for the fact that every time an imported firearm changes hands, it fetches a higher price. While they can have their own R&D effort to develop new range of firearms as per requirements, R&D takes time and money. They can always tie up with technology partners till then and may be develop new products jointly. Foreign manufacturers like Colt are ready to allow interested parties to use their brand and provide all tooling and know-how necessary for making good quality firearms. But there is certainly 'X' factor that is stopping such industrial houses from getting into this space.

PS: I know about Colt as I was working with one business associate targeting civilian firearms, but we can't get firearms production license in India.

[ArmenT]

Those of you who purchased civilian IOF firearms would know the pain. Civilian firearms market offer huge volume as well as margins due to ban on import of civilian firearms. Due to that even an old imported firearm fetches crazy prices. E.g. Smith & Wesson revolver will sell around 6 lakh while Beretta Cheetah goes around for 5.5 lakh. IOF weapons on the other hand are fraction of the cost. Of course there is difference in quality and tuning.

Actually, because IOF has such a monopoly, they can charge insane prices for their civilian products. Take, for example, their latest product (the IOF "Nirbheek" .32 revolver). Now, where else in the world would someone have the nerve to charge over $2000 for a revolver that is a clone of a Webley & Scott Mark IV design from 1899, resized to use a smaller cartridge caliber and with a crappier build quality. Of course, IOF can get away with it because they have a monopoly.

[rohitvats]

Anyone who talks about retaining 7.62 SLR hasn't seen the gun in action and the penalty is places on the soldier. It was good for its time and served the purpose but no more. The massive stopping power of the bullet notwithstanding.

Coming to MCR - well, from my limited reading on the subject, the thought seems to be that the army should have one base model which can be modified for use as per operational requirement. So, IA regular infantry on LOC could use 5.56 caliber while RR troops in hinterland could deploy with 7.62 mm caliber. Further, within the same unit, some personnel can use rifles with varying caliber depending on their role. I don't think anyone expects soldiers to change barrel in middle of fire-fight. Or expect an infantry battalion to have spares to convert the entire stock from one caliber to another.

Having said that - DRDO developed the Multi Caliber Individual Weapon System on their own accord or was it against a requirement put in by the army?

[Pratyush]

my reading is non existing on this matter. but I feel that the IA, when looking at the new weapon, is essentially looking at a weapon. That can be both 5.56 and 7.62 mm. but will not require the jawan to be trained on 2 separate weapons.


the simplified training alone will make the weapon worth while. the challenge will be to make it work. the icing on the cake would be to have home made solution.

[abhik]

my reading is non existing on this matter. but I feel that the IA, when looking at the new weapon, is essentially looking at a weapon. That can be both 5.56 and 7.62 mm. but will not require the jawan to be trained on 2 separate weapons.


the simplified training alone will make the weapon worth while. the challenge will be to make it work. the icing on the cake would be to have home made solution.

They can just design 2 separate guns with the same mechanism. Just take the example of the Ar-15 family and descendants. As long as the troops do not have to change calibers in the field there is no need for a gun that transforms. Going the Multi caliber way means that even if you need only x% of the guns to have the ability to change the the round it fires, 100% of the guns you buy are will end up being more complex, less reliable, more expensive and heavier than a single caliber gun.

[abhik]

Coming to MCR - well, from my limited reading on the subject, the thought seems to be that the army should have one base model which can be modified for use as per operational requirement. So, IA regular infantry on LOC could use 5.56 caliber while RR troops in hinterland could deploy with 7.62 mm caliber.

Why not go for two different simpler guns(possibly with similar design) rather than a single compromised design. This is what is currently currently being done with the INSAS and the AK. As it is the number of troops who are in active RR service is a fraction of the service.

Further, within the same unit, some personnel can use rifles with varying caliber depending on their role.

What roles would these be?

[Pratyush]

I dont think that the IA is looking at a changing calibre in the field. If the caliber is changed. It will be in the camp. The advantage of this gun ought to be that a jawan can conduct this exercise by himself. rather then involving the armour of the unit. for the changes.


but I see the point you are making and have no disagreement with it.

[rohitvats]

Why not go for two different simpler guns(possibly with similar design) rather than a single compromised design. This is what is currently being done with the INSAS and the AK. As it is the number of troops who are in active RR service is a fraction of the service.

abhik - I don't have opinion either ways on such a weapon system. I'm still trying to read on the subject.

Frankly, if you ask me, I would want something which is simple and gets the job done - where simple is relative term given the present technology status with respect to assault rifles around the globe.

If the argument in favor of a multiple caliber weapon is that it will lead to simpler logistic then one needs to look into true cost-benefit analysis; acquisition+life-cycle cost of single multi-caliber rifle versus having 2/3 x rifles of different calibers.

Further, the logistics of forces separated by geography or operational deployment - and which are more or less static - should be easier.

Further, within the same unit, some personnel can use rifles with varying caliber depending on their role.

What roles would these be?

Officers with lighter version or Designated Marksman with larger caliber rifle.

To me, multi-caliber rifle makes sense if an infantry battalion is to be equipped with a mix of calibers. For example, a section of troops (10 in number) is equipped with mix of 5.56 and 7.62 caliber weapons to provide higher fire-power. In such case, having a multi-caliber rifle would really make sense.

[vic]

Ok, let's cut out blue on blue.

As per MCIWS brochure details posted on another forum, the rifle with Empty magazine is ONLY 3.3 kg which is super astounding 1 kg less than INSAS rifle. It means that MCIWS is manufactured with aerospace level engineering and light alloys. My guess is that even the barrel is longer than INSAS rifle. MCIWS seems to get better and better with more information coming. Note, till recently DRDO was struggling to get MSMG at 3kg but now they have achieved it with full length rifle that can fire Indian ammo is astounding.

[vic]

Note MCIWS cannot fire 7.62x51 ammo

[Brando]

Ok, let's cut out blue on blue.

As per MCIWS brochure details posted on another forum, the rifle with Empty magazine is ONLY 3.3 kg which is super astounding 1 kg less than INSAS rifle. It means that MCIWS is manufactured with aerospace level engineering and light alloys.

Surely DRDO know what they are doing but the use of lighter Al alloys would raise questions as to the reliability and accuracy of the rifle under high thermal loads. Any data on what is the exact alloy used or its thermal characteristics ?

[vic]

I am posting from another forum as its DRDO brochure and the copyright would be with DRDO itself.

[vic]

[vic]

[vic]

[vic]

[vic]

[abhik]

^^^
Where is the "Trigger" for the Under Barrel Grenade launcher?

[vic]

It seems OFB is also offering a tripod mounted 12.7mm HMG for dismounted use. Perhaps based on NSV manufactered for T-72 & T-90s.

Credit to Daedalus

[Viv S]

Note MCIWS cannot fire 7.62x51 ammo

That being the case this mutli-calibre requirement appears to be a farce. The 6.8mm isn't service with any major military and I'd be astounded to see the IA adopt it. The 7.62x39mm provides good stopping power and has its utility in CQB., but its not in wide service and isn't worth the logistical hassle of regularising a second calibre across the service.

If the SF and NSG can 'manage' with their Tavors, M4s and SG 551s, the infantryman can 'manage' with a plain vanilla 5.56 AR as well. Hopefully, no major cost/performance compromises were made by ARDE to accommodate a multi-calibre capability.

[vic]

INSAS went through a testing period of 15 years and JVPC=MSMC went through a testing period of 10 years. I guess that MCIWS will have to wait at least 5 years or more for the user test phases.

[vivek_ahuja]

That being the case this mutli-calibre requirement appears to be a farce. The 6.8mm isn't service with any major military and I'd be astounded to see the IA adopt it. The 7.62x39mm provides good stopping power and has its utility in CQB., but its not in wide service and isn't worth the logistical hassle of regularising a second calibre across the service.

If the SF and NSG can 'manage' with their Tavors, M4s and SG 551s, the infantryman can 'manage' with a plain vanilla 5.56 AR as well. Hopefully, no major cost/performance compromises were made by ARDE to accommodate a multi-calibre capability.

Logistics. Commonality. Practicality.

These are issues that only an Army that is preparing for large scale war thinks about. As such, these are not required for consideration during the IA infantry rifles deal.

Now stop being a fly in the soup!

[Rahul M]

isn't 7.62X39 same as the AK round ? that one is widespread service in India for COIN, for both army and various police forces. it is in fact the 7.62X51 round (SLR) that is uncommon and not in widespread use.

I personally don't see what's all that bad about the multi caliber weapon idea, in stead of forcing soldiers to train on 2 widely different guns for regular inf. and COIN, they want the same gun so that soldiers in one role can seamlessly change into the other.

[pragnya]

New Delhi. India ’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has developed a corner shot rifle for special forces.

DRDO chief Dr Avinash Chander told India Strategic that the lightweight rifle is made of composite materials and is multi-caliber, capable of firing both 5.56 and 7.62 rounds. It is undergoing final tests at its small arms unit in Pune at present.

Once the evaluation trials are over, the rifle design would be offered to a public or private sector industry for manufacture as per the Government’s decision, and then made available to special forces like the National Security Guard (NSG), Army and police units.

The corner shot rifle, which enables a soldier to fire at 90 degrees or at an angle from behind a wall without facing a terrorist or a target was first developed in Israel . India is reported to have bought some rifles for anti-terror operations.

Dr Chander said that the rifle is of simple design and would be easy to manufacture.

DRDO develops Corner Shot rifle

[Pratyush]

IIRC, the 6.8 mm is in service with some units in PRC. in bullpup configuration.

[vic]

I hope DRDO starts working on light 7.62x51 LMG and Sniper rifles which are also required inlarge numbers by Indian Army.

[abhik]

There is also the huge Police/Paramilitary market especially the Pistol/SMG category. The Home ministry recently bought a staggering 30,000+ guns(some report the figure at 60K+) from Beretta MX4 via direct import. The DRDO should stop wasting time with the Joint venture carbine (or whatever it is called) and just design a simple, cost-effective and reliable 9mm pistol and SMG/Carbine. As it is the Army does not seem to be interested with any guns from the DRDO. might at least try to capture some of the Police/Paramilitary market.

[rkhanna]

New russian Bullpup MG for Spetznaz