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.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7387
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rohitvats » 08 Mar 2017 10:31

ArmenT wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
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.

7.62x51 mm. cartridges produce a lot of recoil, which make the shooter lose accuracy in burst and full-auto mode. Also, they are much heavier. A user can carry nearly 2x the number of 5.56x45 mm. cartridges for the same weight of 7.62x51 mm. cartridges. Which are two reasons for going for the lighter cartridge.

Most of the debate between 5.56x45 vs. 7.62x39 has to do with the terminal ballistics of their respective bullets. The smaller and lighter 5.56x45 cartridge bullet has a flatter path and carries enough velocity at the 600 meter mark to penetrate through 60s era Soviet body armor (which is when the cartridge was selected). The 7.62x39 cartridge (also called M43) moves slower and loses a lot of velocity beyond the 100 meter mark.The wounding capabilities of its bullet are also different. At ranges of about 100 meters or so, the 5.56x45 mm. cartridge (also called the M855) bullet will fragment upon hitting a body and the fragments will separate and spread out, producing a bigger hole than 5.56 mm diameter and increasing the chance of hitting vital organs and such. Above this distance, the fragmentation possibility diminishes rapidly (allegedly M855 frag. capability was designed keeping some Geneva convention protocol in mind). So if a target is hit at say 400 meters, very good chance that the hole produced will stay at 5.56 mm. diameter and therefore, unless the bullet is aimed at a vital spot, the chance of stopping the target is lessened. The M43 bullet doesn't fragment at all, but due to the way it is balanced, when it hits soft tissue, the bullet travels about 10 inches in and then starts to yaw significantly, thereby increasing the size of the wound and the wounding potential. It does not lose this yawing ability at greater ranges, even though it starts to lose accuracy and velocity more rapidly. However, note that it needs to have significant penetration depth before yawing happens. In many situations, the bullet enters and exits before it has a chance to yaw, therefore only leaving a 7.62mm. diameter hole. Many studies of woundings from the Vietnam era to the 80s showed that this situation happened in the majority of cases. This greatly reduces the wounding potential of the M43 to around the level of a small handgun cartridge with non-expanding bullets. Which means that unless it is aimed at a vital spot, the M43 also has much less wounding potential in many cases. So unless it is aimed at a femur directly, a shot to the arm or leg isn't going to do do much.

However, due to heavier weight of the M43 bullet, it has less chance of deviating when fired through light foliage and leaves (i.e. behind cover), whereas the M855 bullet can get deflected by so much as a bee getting in the way of the bullet.

So what is to be done? Turns out that people have improved the original bullet designs. For instance, some other cartridges in the 7.62x39 mm. caliber include the M67 (Yugoslav), Chinese, Czech and other cartridges were developed well after the M43. In these designs, the bullet starts to yaw much sooner (in like 3 inches of penetration or so) and therefore, the wounding potential is more when using these cartridges. Similarly, the US military recently went with the M855 Mark 1, where the bullet has a much better chance of fragmenting even at ranges well past 100 meters and the US military are reporting much success with the improved cartridge. The Russians abandoned the M43 and went with the smaller 5.45x39 mm. cartridge since 1974 (when they replaced the AKM with AK-74) and the bullet in this cartridge also yaws and tumbles a lot easier, producing much larger wounds than 5.45 mm diameter holes. In fact, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the early 80s, the Afghan Muj used to call the 5.45x39 mm. bullet as the "poison bullet" on account of the fact that it produced much larger wounds than its size indicated (well that, and lack of quality medical care meant wounds were often fatal in a few days).


ArmenT - thank you for this wonderful and very informative post. Helped me to understand the issue in detail. It is posts like these which make it worthwhile to visit BRF.

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 08 Mar 2017 11:43

^^^^
Thanks much sir. Forgot to mention a couple more points in the post. The M855 was originally designed in the 1960s with the 20 inch M16 barrel in mind, so the fragmentation and yawing would happen at distances up to 100 meters or so. Bear in mind that the ability to frag. and yaw for this bullet is velocity dependent, which is why the probability of this happening goes down over longer distances. The trouble is that when the US military went with the M14 carbine with a shorter 14.5 inch barrel, the velocity of the bullet coming out of the barrel was lessened due to the shorter barrel, which means the distance at which fragging and yawing happen also got correspondingly lessened, which led to some complaints about performance in Iraq and Afghanistan. This got fixed when the improved M855 Mark I was developed.

The penetration depth of the bullet before yawing and fragging occurs (about 10 inches for M43, 6-7 inches for M855) also is a factor. The muj. were often protected by the fact that they were skinny and starved with something like 7.5 inch thick torsos, so bullets would often go through them before having chance to yaw and would not transfer their full energy to the target. That's where improved rounds like the Yugoslav, Czech, Chinese, M855A1, 5.45x39 etc. were better because they yaw within about 3 inches of penetration.

The M43 bullet of the AK is heavier and moves slower, but at distances below 100 meters or so, it delivers about 15% more kinetic energy than the M855 (fired out of original M16), due to larger mass. This means better punch and penetration through barriers at shorter distances. However, it starts to lose velocity more rapidly and by 300 meters, the M855 actually delivers about 25% more kinetic energy than M43 and it only starts getting worse from here on for the AK bullet. Which is why people say that the AK becomes rapidly less effective after 100 meters or so.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31263
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 08 Mar 2017 14:43

ArmenT wrote:The penetration depth of the bullet before yawing and fragging occurs (about 10 inches for M43, 6-7 inches for M855) also is a factor. The muj. were often protected by the fact that they were skinny and starved with something like 7.5 inch thick torsos, so bullets would often go through them before having chance to yaw and would not transfer their full energy to the target. That's where improved rounds like the Yugoslav, Czech, Chinese, M855A1, 5.45x39 etc. were better because they yaw within about 3 inches of penetration.

The M43 bullet of the AK is heavier and moves slower, but at distances below 100 meters or so, it delivers about 15% more kinetic energy than the M855 (fired out of original M16), due to larger mass. This means better punch and penetration through barriers at shorter distances. However, it starts to lose velocity more rapidly and by 300 meters, the M855 actually delivers about 25% more kinetic energy than M43 and it only starts getting worse from here on for the AK bullet. Which is why people say that the AK becomes rapidly less effective after 100 meters or so.

Unfortunately ArmenTs super post sounds like a medical paper that says:

If the patient is diagnosed and treatment started within 24 hours of the onset of illness, drug X has an 86% chance of curing the ailment completely. When started on day 2 - a survey of 2400 patients showed that drug X was only 62% effective. After day 3 Drug X is found to work only in 47% of the time. Given that in rural India patients often come for treatment only after day 3 the chance of an early and quick remission using Drug X is less than 15%


What this means is that there is no ideal weapon/bullet combination for all situations for all time. I only hope the Indian army is not looking for unobtanium

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 541
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 08 Mar 2017 15:15

shiv wrote:What this means is that there is no ideal weapon/bullet combination for all situations for all time. I only hope the Indian army is not looking for unobtanium


The first part is a fact of life (or death). The second part is debatable :D

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Shalav » 10 Mar 2017 09:14

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?

Since they were re-equipping entirely they could have also opted for 7.62 x 39 Warsaw Pact or the 5.45 x 39 Russian. No, for some odd reason which is still not clear they opted for the NATO calibre. So much was written and argued about this calibre change right here on this forum.

In the intervening years they also called for a "multi-calibre" rifle to replace the INSAS - no one from any country in the world was able to provide one with the specs they set. IIR that farce correctly they wanted a 5.56 to also fire an intermediate 6.8(6.5?) calibre with only a barrel change and WITHOUT changing the bolt and bolt-carrier, or they wanted a complete barrel and bolt change in one action. Even me with very little knowledge knows only changing the barrel would not suffice as the 6.5 came in either 6.5x39 6.5x49 and the 6.8 came in 6.8x42 - all of which do not match the 5.56x45 calibre cartridge length. Any calibre change would also also mean changing the magazine receiver - at that point it would be simpler to exchange the entire rifle rather than fiddle about with barrel + bolt-carrier group + lower receiver change in the field. The trials of the so called "multi-calibre" rifles failed spectacularly! I wonder if the powers that be in the IA ever introspected and ordered an inquiry into why something so logically and physically impossible was even sent out as an RFP?

When will the IA ever do their own research into what actually works for them and what is practical? Why not intermediates 6.5 or 6.8? Where is their research on these calibres? They have never ever published or provided any research from any IA technical division for something as basic as stating why they prefer a particular calibre? All we hear is now "we want to change back to the previously discarded calibre, because reasons...". If this continues 20 years from now we might even hear them say "we need to change over to an intermediate 6.5 / 6.8 calibre, because reasons...".

It just makes me SMH seeing so much effort and money wasted every 20 years or so, because after all this time IA still cannot decide what calibre is good for them!

I'm betting they are looking at the phoren 7.62x51 calibre rifle only. The RM should just order them to work with the OFB and up-barrel the INSAS or another suitable and ready available Indian designed rifle with a 7.62 bolt / bolt-carrier / barrel combo - just like the Israeli Galil 7.62 variant is an up-barreled from the standard 5.56 variant. It's not as if this is high technology where the OFB will have to re-invent the wheel - even they should be capable of this.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31263
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 10 Mar 2017 10:11

Shalav wrote: I wonder if the powers that be in the IA ever introspected and ordered an inquiry into why something so logically and physically impossible was even sent out as an RFP?
.

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.

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: 116
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: 250
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: 7066
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: 31263
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: 45393
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: 45393
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: 1701
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: 794
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: 31263
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: 31263
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: 541
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: 45393
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: 35136
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: 779
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: 19817
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: 779
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: 401
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: 1701
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Katare » 20 Mar 2017 10:40

Why you are not?

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 192
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: 31263
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: 31263
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: 18095
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: 541
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: 554
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: 31263
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: 541
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: 31263
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: 8565
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
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55620
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: I stood eye to eye with The Beast and he told me everything...

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 !! :)


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests