An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby shiv » 10 Jul 2009 08:43

Rahul M wrote:an image from the para regiment site. the gun appears to be INSAS. Image

if it is indeed INSAS, then that is quite intriguing in the context of the discussions of this thread !



IIRC there is a short barrel INSAS. Just a parting shot before I change my uniform back to ArmcAir marshal.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby negi » 10 Jul 2009 09:05

To be honest we have nothing against the 6.5 or 6.x mm ,the major and most practical factor in favor of the 5.56*45mm is its wide spread use,production and ofcourse compatible rifles across the globe .

There will be cases or instances where this round might be found wanting in terms of penetrating power ,for eg. the Afghan incident but then look at the 'range' these folks are talking about 600mtr+ :shock: :eek: .

Unless you have a decent optical sight/scope on the rifle one is better of emptying the whole magazine and pray for a lucky shot at those ranges; in such situations one needs the suppressive fire power of Nato 7.62mm that too at a high rate which can only be sustained by a LMG or above which again is quite common and widely manufactured round.

Unless cash rich countries like US and EU consortium convince their partners and overnight trash all their existing 5.56 as well as the 7.62mm rounds I don't see 6.x series having many takers despite being a decent compromise between the 5.56 and 7.62mm.For at the end of the day I am pretty sure there would be scenarios where 6.x series would be found wanting and some ballistics company out there would come out with a round with x.xmm caliber which would allegedly outperform the existing round. :lol:

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby Rien » 10 Jul 2009 19:46

negi wrote:There will be cases or instances where this round might be found wanting in terms of penetrating power ,for eg. the Afghan incident but then look at the 'range' these folks are talking about 600mtr+ :shock: :eek: .


And, what exactly, do you suggest they should do if someone does shoot them at ranges of 600m? The front page of this thread contains document combat reports of veterans who, at ranges of 100 meters, could not put down starving Somalians, even after 4 shots of 5.56 mm. Ever watch Black Hawk Down?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/ ... am_ki.html

Here's more from American soldiers on the issue. Every US soldier thinks 5.56 mm is great until they get into real combat. Even the US military has given in and now says, "Use two bullets, even at ranges of 100 meters!"

negi wrote:Unless cash rich countries like US and EU consortium convince their partners and overnight trash all their existing 5.56 as well as the 7.62mm rounds I don't see 6.x series having many takers despite being a decent compromise between the 5.56 and 7.62mm.For at the end of the day I am pretty sure there would be scenarios where 6.x series would be found wanting and some ballistics company out there would come out with a round with x.xmm caliber which would allegedly outperform the existing round. :lol:


The US special forces did develop a 6.8 mm round. It was in the first page of this thread. However, there is no way in hell that the US Army can adopt this caliber. That would be the same as admitting they were wrong for over 40 years. The US prizes face far more than the Chinese. What should embarrass them even more is that their 6.8 mm round is pretty much the same thing as the Soviet 7.62 x 39 mm. It's only what the Soviet Union has been using since the 1940's!

The DRDO, also on the first page, is developing a multi caliber rifle that fires 5.56, 6.8 and7.62. Better off with *just* the intermediate round. The 6.8 developers wanted to use 6mm, but because the M16's dimensions were wrong, they couldn't pull it off.
Does it make more sense to waste money on 3 different factories and 3 different calibers, or just standard on one Universal Military Cartridge, just like the Chinese have done with 5.8 mm.

It is not possible to make a bullet that surpasses 6 or 6.5 mm at ranges of a 1000 meters. Both 5.56 and 7.62 used to be used in competitions for under 500 meters, and up to a 1 000 meters accuracy. But now both calibers have been beaten, comprehensively, by 6 and 6.5 at all ranges. That is impressive, and cannot be matched by any other caliber. To be better than both calibers above and below you has not happened before, and this has been true for around 20 years.

If you can make a caliber and please don't suggest 6.102 or any number between 6 and 6.5, that can outperform either one, you can win substantial sums of money. There has not been one for over 20 years, so bullet technology has nothing in the way of calibers that can improve on 6 or 6.5mm. Every single study that has ever been done have all agreed on calibers in the 6 -6.5 range.
Nothing can do better in terms of weight to power ratio.

As an aside:

Original 5.56 -> 55 grains -> Current NATO bullet -> 62 grains -> newest special forces 5.56 round -> 77 grains. Does it make sense to stick with a bullet that just keeps getting heavier, and heavier, and heavier? All in a vain attempt to reach performance levels it can never meet. Originally, NATO 5.56 was *half* the weight of 7.62, but it just keeps going up in weight.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby Rahul M » 10 Jul 2009 19:54

shiv wrote:
Rahul M wrote:an image from the para regiment site. the gun appears to be INSAS. Image

if it is indeed INSAS, then that is quite intriguing in the context of the discussions of this thread !



IIRC there is a short barrel INSAS. Just a parting shot before I change my uniform back to ArmcAir marshal.

thank you shiv ji.
seems I had forgotten to mention why this pic was relevant to this thread.

if it is indeed the INSAS and the soldiers are almost certainly in some designated marksman/sniper role, what does it say about IA's beliefs about the accuracy and lethality of the 5.56X45 mm round at long ranges ?

that does have some bearing on the discussions on this thread, right ? :wink:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby shiv » 10 Jul 2009 20:23

Rien wrote:
It is not possible to make a bullet that surpasses 6 or 6.5 mm at ranges of a 1000 meters. Both 5.56 and 7.62 used to be used in competitions for under 500 meters, and up to a 1 000 meters accuracy. But now both calibers have been beaten, comprehensively, by 6 and 6.5 at all ranges. That is impressive, and cannot be matched by any other caliber. To be better than both calibers above and below you has not happened before, and this has been true for around 20 years.


This is all true.

But 300 to 400 meters was considered fine even by NATO until they started getting their asses singed by Taliban using 7.62 in Afghanistan.

Now instead of using the 7.62 that already exists to fry Taliban asses, some people are holding competitions outside of war to push the 6.8.

That is what is so absurd.

The 5.56 m round became popular because of jungle war in Vietnam where a 1000 meter range was hardly necessary. 300-400 meters was more than enough. Now suddenly - body count ratios in Afghanistan are going awry and we are hearing "6.8".being chanted.

In 15 years in a new jungle war - the 6.8 may become to heavy and everyone will want 5.56 again.

Oh - I forgot - because of deforestation we can't have jungle wars any more.. :roll:

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2493
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby darshhan » 10 Jul 2009 22:47

thank you shiv ji.
seems I had forgotten to mention why this pic was relevant to this thread.

if it is indeed the INSAS and the soldiers are almost certainly in some designated marksman/sniper role, what does it say about IA's beliefs about the accuracy and lethality of the 5.56X45 mm round at long ranges ?

that does have some bearing on the discussions on this thread, right ?

Don't read too much into this picture.The soldiers are most probably training for stealth and evasion instead of actual shooting(a very important part of sniper's curriculum).So they don't require specialized rifles for this.

Also a lot of snipers do carry an assault rifle in addition to their sniper rifles just in case they are compromised.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby RayC » 10 Jul 2009 22:50

The front page of this thread contains document combat reports of veterans who, at ranges of 100 meters, could not put down starving Somalians, even after 4 shots of 5.56 mm. Ever watch Black Hawk Down?


This 'veteran' buzzword is overused

Even the cook in my langar (cookhouse) was a veteran compared to me. And if he was on the range we were extra careful.

The Americans are expert in hyperbole to sell a product or an idea. No big deal. Iraq had WMD and A,B, C were axis of evil etc. And most of that have turned out to be false.

Therefore, if 'veterans' failed to kill starved, emaciated Somalis at 100m, then there is something seriously wrong with the US Army training. Can you amplify on that

To my mind all these bedtime stories about Somalia are just to cover up their total incompetence and how useless they are!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby RayC » 10 Jul 2009 22:51

A sniper does not carry excessive weight since he has to be dexterous.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2493
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby darshhan » 11 Jul 2009 01:14

By sniper I meant sniper team which consists of a spotter as well.I have read it more than once that spotters do carry assault rifles.You can check out the following link.

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

He also provides the team security, therefore he is usually armed with an assault rifle. It is often the case that the sniper rifle is assigned exclusively to a single person, therefore in the case of rotation the spotter carries two weapons.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 797
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby rakall » 11 Jul 2009 22:03

A very good thread with proper & useful discussion and views -- somewhat of a rarity on BR these days..

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby Rahul M » 11 Jul 2009 22:08

darshhan wrote:
thank you shiv ji.
seems I had forgotten to mention why this pic was relevant to this thread.

if it is indeed the INSAS and the soldiers are almost certainly in some designated marksman/sniper role, what does it say about IA's beliefs about the accuracy and lethality of the 5.56X45 mm round at long ranges ?

that does have some bearing on the discussions on this thread, right ?

Don't read too much into this picture.The soldiers are most probably training for stealth and evasion instead of actual shooting(a very important part of sniper's curriculum).So they don't require specialized rifles for this.

Also a lot of snipers do carry an assault rifle in addition to their sniper rifles just in case they are compromised.

even if they are training it is likely they will use a gun that is closest possible to their actual issued weapon, if those soldiers are snipers they will use a gun of similar dimensions/weight. dummy guns are used for training purposes.

also, a regular soldier won't go training for stealth in ghilli suits AFAIK, could be corrected on this.

I'm not saying you wrong, just that other possibilities exist.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2493
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby darshhan » 12 Jul 2009 04:32

even if they are training it is likely they will use a gun that is closest possible to their actual issued weapon, if those soldiers are snipers they will use a gun of similar dimensions/weight. dummy guns are used for training purposes.

also, a regular soldier won't go training for stealth in ghilli suits AFAIK, could be corrected on this.

I'm not saying you wrong, just that other possibilities exist.


Yes it might be the case that Insas is closest to dragunovs in size.That's why they are being used by these snipers.

Even I haven't heard of a regular soldier in a ghillie suit.But these soldiers depicted in the picture are most probably special forces(Para sf).Special forces have been known to use these.I don't know about indian SF.These will be most probably snipers though.

That's all.Let's get back to the cartridge discussion.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby Surya » 12 Jul 2009 09:12

There is no shortage of Dragunovs with the SF.

If they need to train with Draginov they will get a dragunov.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby shiv » 12 Jul 2009 09:33

Surya wrote:There is no shortage of Dragunovs with the SF.

If they need to train with Draginov they will get a dragunov.


I have held (but not fired) a Dragunov in my hands. It is a beautifully balanced weapon. With the left palm under the barrel/forestock the rifle sits beautifully balanced and comfortably and there is no work for the right hand other than steadying and pressing the trigger. The cheek rests comfortably against the stock and the right eye finds that the scope is in just the right position. And the weapon is light enough to not overstress the left arm that is supporting its weight.

Of course - it's barrel is much longer than an INSAS and it would be a pain to lug around and manipulate in restricted spaces.

nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby nikhil_p » 03 Sep 2009 02:56

A friend saw future weapons...they were showing their 'New' .50 cal sniper rifle. He was like...this is great...why dont we have weapons like this...blah blah blah..
I had a hard time explaining to him that the sniper will probably be able to carry far fewer rounds into battle and this is good only for scenarios where the soldier is close to 'home base'..

Was I right?

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6173
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby Vikas » 03 Sep 2009 03:50

From someone who is not even a armchair Langari,a very basic question.
How big is the difference in the number of rounds a soldier would carry when carrying 7.6 instead of 5.52 or 6.8. Ultimately how many rounds does a soldier of IA typically carries with him in battlefield ?
How does that number match with a soldiers from other armies like US , IDF, RU or China ?

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby Raja Bose » 03 Sep 2009 06:38

RayC wrote:Therefore, if 'veterans' failed to kill starved, emaciated Somalis at 100m, then there is something seriously wrong with the US Army training. Can you amplify on that

To my mind all these bedtime stories about Somalia are just to cover up their total incompetence and how useless they are!


Ray sir,

I think the incident being referred to here is the inability of US Special Forces (specifically Delta Force) to shoot down Somalis at closer ranges. The official story was that these Delta fellas were using some hi-tech super-duper bullet called a green tip round (if I recall correctly) which had a tungsten penetrator for anti-material use. When used against scrawny Somalis they would usually just pass through them and if it did not hit any vital organ the guy would still be functional and firing.

nikhil_p
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 378
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 19:59
Location: Sukhoi/Sukhoi (Jaguars gone :( )Gali, pune

Re: An alternative to NATO 5.56mm cartridges

Postby nikhil_p » 04 Sep 2009 19:51

VikasRaina wrote:From someone who is not even a armchair Langari,a very basic question.
How big is the difference in the number of rounds a soldier would carry when carrying 7.6 instead of 5.52 or 6.8. Ultimately how many rounds does a soldier of IA typically carries with him in battlefield ?
How does that number match with a soldiers from other armies like US , IDF, RU or China ?

Cartridge weight of a 5.56 NATO round is approx 12gms. So if a soldier carries approx 150 rounds, he will be carrying around 1800 gms (1.8 kgs) + Magazine weight.
Cartridge weight of a 7.62 NATO round is approx 26 gms. So at 150 rounds...3.9 kgs.+Mag
Also a 5.56 weap could be lighter than the 7.62 (lower breech/barrel weight)with the same eff. range.
AFAIK IA soldiers carry between 6 to 10 mags (30 bullets each) depending upon their posting. (I could be wrong though...Paging RAYC sir)....


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest