Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Small Arms Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 582
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Shalav » 10 Mar 2017 11:04

Too true.

Someone may have seen the brochure for the Baretta ARX160 and sent that onwards and upwards to an RFP.

Eventually the ARX 160 ended up as the ARX 200 for the 7.62x51 calibre. Presently the ARX 160 can only do 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 and ONLY with a complete Barrel + Bolt + Lower receiver change. This is a depot level change - not for the field.

See here for an example: https://youtu.be/SGS2WAF2oAo?t=1m20s

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby A Deshmukh » 10 Mar 2017 11:32

Shalav wrote:So 20 years ago the IA decided they wanted to retire their 7.62 x 51 FN FAL's (Ishapore 1A1) in favour of the 5.56 x 45 NATO. Some of the reasons given among many IIRC was that they wanted to reduce the burden on soldiers by using lighter calibre ammo and they wanted a more modern calibre ballistics. Now they have suddenly decided they want the 7.62 x 51 after all, and suddenly all the problems of weight and ballistic performance they described with 7.62x51 calibre 20 years ago have no relevance?! WTF?


Nature of warfare has changed. IA is now fighting terrorists who want to die and not survive.
We need to change as per new environment.

IMHO, we are letting TSP set our agenda for way too long. whether its INSAS guns, or Arjun Tanks, or M2K/Mig29 or WLR procurements.
With new govt, hopefully, we will procure as per our strategic goal proactively.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 582
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Shalav » 10 Mar 2017 12:10

I'm very sure that's not it.

IIRC One of the reasons to justify the calibre change was the 7.62x51 had terminal ballistics which penetrated flesh but did not cause great wound damage before passing through the body. The justification for 5.56x45 was that it's terminal ballistics caused it to tumble and caused greater wound damage. Even at that time as it is today, wound damage and the terminal ballistics of tumbling / fragmentation are mainly due to bullet characteristics.

BTW the IA was fighting terrorists who wanted to die in the 90's too. All the more reason to stick with the 7.62x51 cartridge. Additionally I saw on some MSM report that the IA wants the 7.62x51 because the PA has it. What...?! The PA has not changed from the G3 for about 50 years; OTOH within the space of ~20 years the IA is about to change calibres twice. 7.62 -> 5.56 -> 7.62 !!!

In any case the IA does not need a phoren 7.62x51 - a conversion to 7.62 of any Indian designed rifle is just as effective as a phoren designed and manufactured rifle.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Atmavik » 10 Mar 2017 13:17

Gen V K Singh on INSAS. watch the first 4 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIJdS1dPLxU

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Pratyush » 10 Mar 2017 13:26

shiv wrote:There was a scathing article on how these RFPs are made. Some junior officer is tasked with the "research" on what is the "latest" to come up with specs. He surfs the net for brochures and writes something up. That is inspected by a middle level officer who needs to show that he is more clever than the junior by half - so he adds some requirements of his own and then presents it to the senior officer who signs the RFP for release.

The story does not sound implausible to me at all.



This is exactly how one of my previous companies used to work. No interest in original work. Only cut and paste jobs.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 10 Mar 2017 14:52

Atmavik wrote:Gen V K Singh on INSAS. watch the first 4 mins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIJdS1dPLxU

Thanks for that link.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48115
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 10 Mar 2017 23:06

ArmenT, Was watching a TV show on US military. The guy said the US Special Forces has a 5.5.6 that is good to 600m. And in some versions is good enough to be a sniper rifle.
What is he talking about? I thought the M16 is close to300m effective.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48115
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 10 Mar 2017 23:07

BTW here is a a US military compendium of weapons they have and expect to face

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20110720 ... ppendl.htm

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1890
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Katare » 11 Mar 2017 01:18

Aditya_V wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:Is it not stipulated that they need a rifle that injure than kill and that is why we got INSAS. I remember reading it before. It may be here in BRF or somewhere else. Am I wrong? Now they are complaining that it can not kill?


This is pure BS, the real reason it was deceided to go for 5.56*45 Ammunition was lessons from the Sri Lanka operations where the SLR was too cumbersome for close combat with high recoile compared to the 7.62*39 Type 56 rifles LTTE employed. but problem with 7.62*39 is because bullet tends to drop it is very inaccurate above 100 meters and not very effective in 100-500 meters conventional combat requirement. But the 5.56*45 mm cannot drop a Jihadi unless it hits a vital area where the 7.62 *39 and 7.62*51 can smash a femur bones etc even it hits legs/arms etc.

The difficulty is finding a bullet that has the stopping power in close combat urban situations but not too cumbersome with a long barrel and high recoil but good enough for conventional combat. All armies are struggling for this hence, toying with the idea of multi caliber rifle.

The other solution is procure 2 rifles per soldier 7.62*39 for Coin and 7.62*51 for conventional deployments. But this increases logistics, better security of arms and asking all soldiers to keep 2 rifles in working order wit sights zerod for the unique way each persons Brain eye coordination works. and Soldiers need to be rotated away from Coin action zones.


Why is it BS, Aditya bhai? I have heard and read this argument a million times over last 2 decades that maiming/injuring a solider not only neutralizes him but also ties up four more to take care of him, increases logistic footprint and brings the morale down for entire army/group.

Now suddenly we need to kill 5 soldiers not injure one and tie-up 4 with him without firing a bullet......to me it all feels like they come up with nice logical sounding reasoning every time to buy foreign and feel good and safe once they have it. Once we have mastered a 105mm field gun and its hugely successful they simply design it out of their war doctrine rather than build on it. Modus operandi seems to be- Wait till last minute and than declare it an emergency that can only be met by immediate purchase which only imports can meet...read basic IAF trainer....the list goes on and on.

I am not saying that armed forces are working on a sinister strategy to destroy the domestic MIC, how can they, they are the most patriotic lot of the nation but I suspect they have developed a culture where it's hard for them to see that, that is exactly what they are doing.

I may be wrong but it sure feels and looks that way to me....

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 842
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Mihir » 11 Mar 2017 02:11

Katare wrote:Why is it BS, Aditya bhai? I have heard and read this argument a million times over last 2 decades that maiming/injuring a solider not only neutralizes him but also ties up four more to take care of him, increases logistic footprint and brings the morale down for entire army/group.

Think about it for a minute. If an infantry section's assault group is engaged in a firefight and a rifleman takes a hit, do you think four other riflemen will drop their weapons, load him onto a stretcher, and carry him back to base? Or will they try to win the engagement first? If it's the latter, then there is no benefit to maiming/injuring a soldier. Like ArmenT says, its marketing fluff.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 582
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Shalav » 11 Mar 2017 03:20

Shouldn't the IA have thought about it BEFORE changing to 5.56? After all they are the professionals!

They told us they needed the 5.56 because it had better terminal ballistics amongst other best of brochure characteristics. Heck right here in the forum everyone in favour of the change stated the same things. Now 20 years later terminal ballistics and weight and flight ballistics are not good enough reasons to maintain the 5.56!

Consider this - the very guys who told us the 5.56 was better than the 7.62 now say the 5.56 is not good for them because it does not do what the 7.62 did! The irony would be very droll, but for the fact of the enormous waste in resources, manpower and treasure changing over from the 7.62 to 5.56 has already cost India. Now consider how much more expensive it is going to be in resources, manpower and treasure to change back to what the IA ALREADY HAD 20 years ago! That's very discourteous of them to say the least.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 582
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Shalav » 11 Mar 2017 03:28

I don't begrudge the IA better arms. I only resent their (to me) cavalier attitude when actually making the selections. There seems to be no long term plan, no research.

The IA has thousands if not 10 of thousands of people working in machine shops and armories. They have a budget of 10 of thousands of crores. Like clockwork every year they return crores of their allocated budget that remains unspent. What's stopping them making their own fracking rifle in one of their own armories with their attached machine shops?

I know those machine shops have great machinists, generally good forges, very high quality lathes and good quality stamping machines. I know they can re-bore their rifles because that's standard equipment in any armory machine shop. That right there are all the tools required to design and make prototypes. Make your own f@kng design prototype and hand it over to the OFB for manufacture.

If the OFB can't do it, release an RFP for private manufacture - any of the big engineering firms (L&T, Godrej) would happily jump at the chance.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 11 Mar 2017 08:05

ramana wrote:ArmenT, Was watching a TV show on US military. The guy said the US Special Forces has a 5.5.6 that is good to 600m. And in some versions is good enough to be a sniper rifle.
What is he talking about? I thought the M16 is close to300m effective.

ramana - I'm not ArmenT but the problem is in what is expected of a firearm-bullet combination. The 5.56 round was lighter, a soldier could carry more and it was imagined that a wounded enemy soldier would cause colleagues to try and evacuate him.

The fact is that a 5.56 (which is the same as the much derided 0.22) can kill even at 2000 meters.
The only questions are:
a. whether it is sure to kill or incapacitate at any range
b. How accurate it is

A bullet is supposed to fly on an accurate ballistic path until it hits a human target. At that point they want the bullet to fragment or tumble and release all its energy into the body tissues causing maximum disruption of body tissues. These two goals are inconsistent especially for smaller caliber bullets.

Smaller caliber bullets must be shot at higher muzzle velocities or they will slow down sooner than heavier calibers. That higher velocity aids better accuracy because the trajectory is flatter and time to target is smaller so the calculations a sniper must do are simplified.

There was much forensic science funda in the 70s and 80s about how "high velocity projectiles" would leave a small entry wound and a large exit wound because of energy release causing "cavitation". Smaller calibers need higher muzzle velocities to carry the same energy over distance as larger calibers. So at shorter ranges - small calibers (eg 5.56) may be as damaging as heavier, lower velocity bullets. But at longer ranges the heavier calibers lose less energy. If that latter energy can be transmitted efficiently into body tissues by tumbling or fragmentation or by hollow point then it becomes more lethal simply because a bullet that passes right through the body is taking some energy away with it; energy that would otherwise have been useful to cause damage of body tissues. At longer ranges the smaller cross-section, lighter 5.56 bullet may retain enough velocity to simply puncture through the body and not cause enough injury to stop an adrenaline powered jihadi.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 11 Mar 2017 08:15

Obviously - apart from caliber the quality of the bullet propellant and manufacturing tolerances are vital. The same caliber bullet from different manufacturers can display different accuracy and energy. Screwing around with the material of the bullet (fragmenting) or shape (hollow point, blunt tip, soft nose) can make a huge difference to the accuracy. All military bullets from rifles emerge at 2 mach plus from the barrel. Flying through the air at over Mach 1 will present great air resistance and as the bullet slows to transonic speeds it may become unstable and tumble or yaw.

So here is the problem:

A bullet that flies fast and stays at high speed when it reaches the target will stay accurate but may simply punch through without stopping in the body to do its job properly.

A bullet that slows down will not only have fallen due to gravity - it may become unstable and lose its accuracy and not do what it is supposed to do - that is hit AND kill.

There is no easy solution. I hope the Indian army knows exactly what they want for each scenario but I suspect that one standard weapon will not meet all needs

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 11 Mar 2017 09:27

There is no easy solution


No, Sir. Not possible. Not for us. Not with all the situations we face.

Fact is the IA is the only large army (with the exception of Khan) which faces a vast and different array of situations - a hostile border war, COIN, terrorism

The typical engagement distances for these situations differ by a good measure. The opponent does not stand still for the army to get into the optimum firing distance.

Each 'type' of situation necessitates a difference in the composition of the unit and the arms it can bring to bear (for assault/engagement fire, for suppressive fire, for marksmanship etc) - which will directly impact the caliber and the volume of ammo needed

And then the doctrine itself might differ - for COIN the army could be asked to try to wound and capture, for a hot border war shoot to kill

So Sir, just like you mentioned in the Airforce thread, the IA will need different types of firearm calibers just like the IAF will require different types of aircraft. The mirage of commonality or a single weapon fits all will remain just that. Until we have Star Trek type phasers which, at the touch of a button, can be set to Stun, Kill or Vaporize :)

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 11 Mar 2017 12:55

ramana wrote:ArmenT, Was watching a TV show on US military. The guy said the US Special Forces has a 5.5.6 that is good to 600m. And in some versions is good enough to be a sniper rifle.
What is he talking about? I thought the M16 is close to300m effective.

The original M855 cartridge for the M16 from the 1980s was capable of penetrating a Sov. block helmet at 600 meters (which is why it was picked). Of course, at this range, the bullet didn't frag or yaw (because this depends on velocity of bullet, so the further away the bullet travels, the lower its velocity, penetration still works, but probability of fragging and yawing go away.) Then they changed to using the M4 carbine instead of the M16 rifle, and since it has a shorter barrel, the velocity of the bullet coming out of the barrel became less and therefore, the frag and yaw distance became even shorter. Therefore the US military came out with M855A1 which was first trialed by special forces before being released to general use. I think they also trialed Mk262, which is also a better bullet, but a lot more expensive to produce. M855A1 is similar in price to M855. The M855A1 has different ballistics and also wears out the barrel faster, but it creates more damage on longer distances than M855.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48115
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 16 Mar 2017 02:52

ArmenT, Thanks. That explains the video I saw on the American History Channel.

Today reports are coming of AK-103 to be made in India. Don't have details yet.

Bokwas. ramana

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35369
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby SaiK » 16 Mar 2017 03:10

I would still think, it may not be entirely required (GSQR) to kill the enemy with one hit [max damage to human body] even if he is a terrorist. And, I am entirely sure that all enemies are not terrorists to put a big hole in a big program. As VKS Ji puts, there were no constant agile improvements done to cater to various changing requirements.

I am trying to understand from the first 4 min video why this would be so bad and sad move to trash a weapon system, especially that is home grown. Projects can never be closed! the maturity always goes as inputs into augmentation projects. I am seeing this as comprehensive systemic/management failure rather the weapon failure.

wrong?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 990
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 17 Mar 2017 09:12

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/03/news-heckler-koch-hk433/

G36 and HK416 had a baby. Heckler and Koch launches HK433. Will also support 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 conversion kits. Strong contender for Bundeswehr G36 replacement.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20414
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Prem » 18 Mar 2017 10:28

Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618

A prototype 7.62 x 51 mm assault rifle developed by the Ordnance Factory Board is headed into Army trials this month.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 990
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 19 Mar 2017 11:23

Prem wrote:Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618

A prototype 7.62 x 51 mm assault rifle developed by the Ordnance Factory Board is headed into Army trials this month.


I have little hope of this gun getting through.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 19 Mar 2017 22:24

Thakur_B wrote:
Prem wrote:Saurav Jha‏ @SJha1618

A prototype 7.62 x 51 mm assault rifle developed by the Ordnance Factory Board is headed into Army trials this month.


I have little hope of this gun getting through.


Why so despondent?

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1890
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Katare » 20 Mar 2017 10:40

Why you are not?

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby jayasimha » 20 Mar 2017 13:53

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION : 7.62mm x 51mm ASSAULT RIFLE FOR INDIAN ARMY

https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata ... %20Rif.pdf

salient features
Indian Army seeks a 7.62mm x 51mm rifle with lethality to achieve the
objective of ‘Shoot to Kill’ with the following broad characteristics:-
(a) Effective Range. Minimum 500 meters.
(b) Lethality. Lethality at ranges up to minimum 500 meters in terms
of wound profile, energy transferred and penetration.
(c) Recoil. The recoil should be duly optimized to provide maximum
comfort to the firer and shoot consistently with accuracy.
(d) Accuracy. The rifle should be capable of achieving accuracy
better than three Minutes of Angle up to a range of minimum 500 meters.
(e) Reliability. The rifle shall be reliable in its operation as per
international standards for reliability and withstand sustained fire.
(f) Weight. The rifle should be as light as possible in weight.
(g) Modular design.
(h) Capable of fitting and firing of Indian in-service UBGL
manufactured by Indian Ordnance Factory, Trichy

Tentative date of issue of RFP is April 2017. Total Quantity required is
approximately 1,85,000 Assault Rifles out of which the immediate
requirement is of approximately 65000 rifles. The approximately quantity
65000 Assault Rifles should be delivered within four (04) months to twenty
eight months (28) from the day of signing of the contract. The vendors should
confirm if they can deliver requisite quantity of Assault Rifles within the
stipulated timeframe.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 20 Mar 2017 17:40

The lethality is greatly dependent on the munition, not so much the rifle itself. Why is the munition type not specified aside from 7.62 x 51? Accuracy too.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 20 Mar 2017 17:44

jayasimha wrote:REQUEST FOR INFORMATION : 7.62mm x 51mm ASSAULT RIFLE FOR INDIAN ARMY

https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata ... %20Rif.pdf

That pdf is giving me a security warning

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19924
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 20 Mar 2017 17:46

shiv wrote:
jayasimha wrote:REQUEST FOR INFORMATION : 7.62mm x 51mm ASSAULT RIFLE FOR INDIAN ARMY

https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata ... %20Rif.pdf

That pdf is giving me a security warning


Seems Certificate has expired , just add an exception to browser and download it , Should not be an issue.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 20 Mar 2017 20:27

shiv wrote:The lethality is greatly dependent on the munition, not so much the rifle itself. Why is the munition type not specified aside from 7.62 x 51? Accuracy too.


The RFI documentation mentions more details viz

Calibre.
(a) Do you have an Assault Rifle of 7.62 x 51mm calibre, including variants if any?
(b) Can the Rifle fire Indian in-service 7.62 x 51mm ammunition i.e. 7.62 x 51mm Ball M-80 and 7.62 x 51mm Tracer M-62?
(c) Please provide the details/ specifications of ammunition fired by your rifle?
(d) Please provide the details of variants of the rifle available with you along with their respective specifications?


and

(a) Please specify the Lethality of the rifle at 50m, 100m, 200m, 300m, 400m and 500m and maximum effective rg in terms of :-
(i) Wound Profile.
(ii) Energy Transferred.
(iii) Penetration of 3.5mm Mild Steel Plate (MSP).
(b) Please specify the trial methodology adopted by you for the evaluation of lethality.
(c) Please provide details of previous trials/ assessment of lethality if carried out in respect of your rifle.
(d) Please specify the details of Wound ballistics in Ballistic Gelatin/ clear silicon or any other material representing close to human body.


and many more queries.. one or two of which bring a smile to the face (no offense intended) .. like this one :)

Colour. What is the colour of your rifle? Do you have rifle of black/grey shades?

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 20 Mar 2017 21:12

M80/M80A1 is the standard ammunition for 7.62 NATO. OFB has manufactured the former for eons now.

The RFI has half a page on reliability tests and mentions TOP (Test Operations Procedure 3-2-045 Small Arms) which is the US Army standard and lays down very comprehensive norms which the competing rifles will have to meet to make the cut.

They are asking for 3 MoA accuracy at ~550 yards which should be easy and also come with either a folding or collapsing buttstock. No mention of preferable barrel lengths, possibly they will zero in on that during trials.

Fairly well laid out RFI.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a481861.pdf

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 20 Mar 2017 22:08

Manish_P wrote:and many more queries.. one or two of which bring a smile to the face (no offense intended) .. like this one :)

Colour. What is the colour of your rifle? Do you have rifle of black/grey shades?

Someone mentioned that black furniture rifles get too hot to touch in hot weather

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 21 Mar 2017 11:28

^ Sir. Like i mentioned.. the smile was purely for the detailed questions put in the request.

I almost expected questions on number, type and size of screws for the upper and lower assembly.. battery type and charging time for the torch etc.

No sarcasm/offense meant.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 21 Mar 2017 14:44

Nothing for me to feel offended but I just wonder if all weapons manufacturers actually do all those lethality tests honestly? I don;t see much information in that regard - and weapons sellers do not seem to advertise that as something to be considered - although it is. I may be wrong on this count.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9277
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 21 Mar 2017 15:39

shiv wrote:Nothing for me to feel offended but I just wonder if all weapons manufacturers actually do all those lethality tests honestly? I don;t see much information in that regard - and weapons sellers do not seem to advertise that as something to be considered - although it is. I may be wrong on this count.


I have seen programs on TV explaining the impact the each type of ammunition using Pig carcasses and Gelatin based Human busts- Ballistic Gel. Comparing say 9mm with .45. or 7.62x39 with 5.56x45. I am sure the idea came to TV from weapon tests.




Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60479
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Singha » 21 Mar 2017 15:54

i think we will eventually just manufacture the latest version of the kalashnikov.

fits all the political dots to a T. should be cheap vs the western kit.

domestic design is clearly out of the question !! :)

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 06 Apr 2017 17:10

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO

According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.

Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm. Although at this point, I’ll keep that exact exact distance close to the vest. The goal here is to foster a dialogue about the 7.62 requirement in general, and not offer operational specifics.

It’s important to establish right up front that 7.62mm is not the Army’s end goal. The “Interim” component of this capability’s name relies on a plan to eventually adopt one of the 6.5mm family of intermediate calibers. Currently, elements of the Army are evaluating .260, .264 USA and .277 USA. The .260 is commercially available while .264 USA and .277 USA are developments of the Army Marksmanship Unit. Unfortunately, the US Army doesn’t plan to conduct an intermediate caliber study until the early 2020s. That’s why they want to adopt 7.62mm now. The idea is to adopt the Battle Rifle to deal with a newly identified threat with what’s available now, and transition the fleet to an intermediate caliber cartridge, once its selected. Additionally, the transition to this proposed intermediate caliber cartridge is possible from a 7.62 platform. Such a transition is all-but-impossible with the current 5.56 receiver sets.

Obviously, a transition to the heavier 7.62 cartridge means a reduction in the basic load of the Soldier, to just under half of the current 210 rounds. That is a serious consideration; perhaps the most important for Army leaders to contemplate. Obviously, transition to the intermediate caliber cartridge will mean more bullets per Soldier, but there must be continued development of polymer cases or telescoping rounds to take fully realize this increase in lethality.

Other factors to consider are the additional weight and recoil of a 7.62mm Battle Rifle. Let’s face it, the military transitioned from the M14 to the M16 for multiple reasons, and one of those was weight savings. Soldiers are also going to require additional training to take full advantage of the new capability. Increased engagement distances also mean Soldiers will require access to longer marksmanship ranges.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48115
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 07 Apr 2017 00:21

vaibhav.n wrote:US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO

According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.

Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm. Although at this point, I’ll keep that exact exact distance close to the vest. The goal here is to foster a dialogue about the 7.62 requirement in general, and not offer operational specifics.

It’s important to establish right up front that 7.62mm is not the Army’s end goal. The “Interim” component of this capability’s name relies on a plan to eventually adopt one of the 6.5mm family of intermediate calibers. Currently, elements of the Army are evaluating .260, .264 USA and .277 USA. The .260 is commercially available while .264 USA and .277 USA are developments of the Army Marksmanship Unit. Unfortunately, the US Army doesn’t plan to conduct an intermediate caliber study until the early 2020s. That’s why they want to adopt 7.62mm now. The idea is to adopt the Battle Rifle to deal with a newly identified threat with what’s available now, and transition the fleet to an intermediate caliber cartridge, once its selected. Additionally, the transition to this proposed intermediate caliber cartridge is possible from a 7.62 platform. Such a transition is all-but-impossible with the current 5.56 receiver sets. :?:

Obviously, a transition to the heavier 7.62 cartridge means a reduction in the basic load of the Soldier, to just under half of the current 210 rounds. That is a serious consideration; perhaps the most important for Army leaders to contemplate. Obviously, transition to the intermediate caliber cartridge will mean more bullets per Soldier, but there must be continued development of polymer cases or telescoping rounds to take fully realize this increase in lethality.

Other factors to consider are the additional weight and recoil of a 7.62mm Battle Rifle. Let’s face it, the military transitioned from the M14 to the M16 for multiple reasons, and one of those was weight savings. Soldiers are also going to require additional training to take full advantage of the new capability. Increased engagement distances also mean Soldiers will require access to longer marksmanship ranges.



Looks like they never learn. Iff the opponenet retains the higher caliber then they have to go back again in 2030.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1002
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 07 Apr 2017 11:32

" the Soldier, to just under half of the current 210 rounds. "

So an american grunt load out is 6 mags on person and 1 in the rifle. Does anybody know an IA jawan loadout?

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 07 Apr 2017 15:40

The standard load for a rifleman is 4 INSAS mags (including rifle) + 1 LMG mag + 2 Frag grenades.

The actual loadout will vary as if he is a part of the rear section in a platoon he may carry additional 84mm RL or 51mm mortar rounds.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 07 Apr 2017 16:49

We should bring back Isapore Fal 7.62x51 with new plastic furniture to replace wood & side mounted sights like Galil

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33977
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 09 Apr 2017 20:40

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... s?from=mdr
OFB develops new rifle for army in quick time
NAGPUR: Responding to army's call to get a new high calibre assault rifle, the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) has developed a weapon on a fast track basis. In normal course, it takes around a year at least to come up with a new weapon. But the assault rifle was ready in six months. The rifle of 7.62x52 calibre operates on the rotating bolt model, same as the legendary AK-47. However, the OFB gun has a higher calibre compared to AK-47 which is a 7.62x39 rifle.

The guns will be manufactured at Rifle Factory Ishapore (RFI) in West Bengal, said director general of OFB S C Bajpai. He was in city to address the valedictory function of Indian Ordnance Factory Service (IOFS) officers at the National Academy of Defence Production (NADP).

Bajpai said an internal trial of the weapon would be held next month. Thereafter, in May, the rifle would be offered to the project evaluation committee that has members of army too. The user trials by the army are expected this year itself.

Bajpai said in the initial stage it was found the gun had a higher recoil which hampered the comfort of the user. A buffer has been developed through DRDO to bring down the recoil, he said.


INSAS, which was used in the Kargil war, is being replaced and the army wants rifles of 7.62 calibre which have a higher lethality. The 5.56 mm bullet used in INSAS generally does not kill the enemy, instead leaves them injured. The theory is wounding the enemy is more effective in a war as it takes several other soldiers to evacuate the injured, thus reducing the enemy strength. However, in counter insurgency and anti-terror operations, the army prefers a bullet that kills, said an ordnance factory source.


This is the second assault rifle developed by the ordnance factory. The 7.62x39 calibre Ghatak is used by the paramilitary forces. Ordnance Factory Trichi has also independently developed an assault rifle of the same calibre. Trichi rifle works on tilting bolt model which is different from AK-47.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Katare and 53 guests