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.
Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1812
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 24 Oct 2018 13:06

Very valid. Hence the highlight portion 'No rifle passed all the tests without issues'. There is no ultimate rifle since conditions can never be ideal. Likewise there is no ideal calibre since the threats will be varied. And our military seems to be only one (other than the US) which operates in such diverse conditions against such varied threats.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 475
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 24 Oct 2018 16:27

I saw in some RT video of spetsnaz maroon baret tryouts, they need to crawl through mud and dust but needed to keep their rifle as clean as possible at the same time so it can be fired to complete the test.
I agree with Manish ji's point that no one rifle is perfect. Taking care of own rifle is an element that is imbibed in training to mitigate many of the issues.
Taking US Army as an example, they fight on most diverse conditions available and yet they do it with AR-15 platform with the cheapest variety possible.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 25 Oct 2018 06:33

souravB wrote:I saw in some RT video of spetsnaz maroon baret tryouts, they need to crawl through mud and dust but needed to keep their rifle as clean as possible at the same time so it can be fired to complete the test.
I agree with Manish ji's point that no one rifle is perfect. Taking care of own rifle is an element that is imbibed in training to mitigate many of the issues.
Taking US Army as an example, they fight on most diverse conditions available and yet they do it with AR-15 platform with the cheapest variety possible.

US army buys M4 from FN at 600 USD per file...
We should have done a FMS for our carbine requirement!,,,

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby SaiK » 25 Oct 2018 18:48

ITBP Soldiers during a parade armed with Ghatak 7.62mm AR https://t.co/lDo0SyWExX

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 26 Oct 2018 14:13

SaiK wrote:ITBP Soldiers during a parade armed with Ghatak 7.62mm AR https://t.co/lDo0SyWExX

Why do they have 7.62x39?

ryogi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 26 May 2017 16:48

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ryogi » 01 Nov 2018 13:26

Whoa!

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/11/mega-made-in-india-kalashnikov-assault-rifle-deal-before-year-end.html

Livefist learns an inter-governmental agreement (IGA) for a 49.5-50.5 joint venture between JSC Kalashnikov Concern and India’s Ordnance Factory Board will be signed before the end of this year. Under the terms of the JV, Kalashnikov and India’s OFB will raise a new facility to manufacture the AK-103 in India, first for the Indian Army on priority, then for other possible Indian customers (including the central police forces) and then for export. The JV also leaves scope for joint development and manufacture of new firearms in country.


:D :)

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2660
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby tsarkar » 01 Nov 2018 15:26


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36292
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby SaiK » 01 Nov 2018 19:27

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/newsle ... Sep_18.pdf
Multi Calibre Individual Weapon System (MCIWS);

IA should focus here and not firang market

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 01 Nov 2018 20:16

Before INSAS system the IA had 7.62x51 SLR and LMGs. All using same cartridge.
When 5.56x45 mm was viable, the IA wanted a small arms system that uses the cartridge.
This resulted in INSAS rifle, carbine and LMG.

Carbine failed the IA tests and won't go into it.
Rifle on paper looks good with right barrel length etc.
However design and production glitches caused many frustrations.
- Magazine cracks, hot lubricating oil spray, jamming.
Worst was the impotence against terrorist armed with Ak-47 guns.
Per the theory INSAS should have the stopping power.: barrel length, rifling twist, muzzle velocity etc.

If the bullet did not have stopping power its because of loss of velocity which is cartridge driven as barrel length etc are already set.
Are OFB made cartridges up-to snuff?

All involved parties DRDO, OFB, and IA were not forth coming to fix the problems with MoD a passive overseer.
The press also has DDM who can't ask proper questions to find out answers.

Interestingly not much complaint about the INSAS LMG!

The US Army and Marines have gone for M4 and the heavier 7.62mm cartridge is for specialist role.
in fact the Marines have given up on the pistol armament for the officers.
B_Thakur or Manjgu tell me whats really wrong with the picture.
General rants we can get from the web.
I want real issues.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 475
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 02 Nov 2018 02:45

ramana wrote:Worst was the impotence against terrorist armed with Ak-47 guns.
Per the theory INSAS should have the stopping power.: barrel length, rifling twist, muzzle velocity etc.

If the bullet did not have stopping power its because of loss of velocity which is cartridge driven as barrel length etc are already set.
Are OFB made cartridges up-to snuff?

No. There are two main reasons for that
  1. The chamber pressure exerted at 335MPa is less than USArmy M855A1 rounds at 430MPa making it weaker at terminal phase. The speed indicated at OFB official website as 890m/s (which I have my own doubt about but cannot prove without data from independent sources) is with 22" LMG barrel, whereas the rifle with 18" barrel will impart much less velocity and as a result stopping power.
    OFB official page
  2. The OFB round (As per their official website) is optimised and tested with a barrel length of 22". Insas using a 18" barrel induces gunk in the gas tube due to improper burning of propellant which leads to failure. USA faced the same problem as per Wiki and mitigated this with testing and refining with their newer M855A1 rounds.
    The M855 was originally made to burn and accelerate from the 20 in (510 mm) barrel of the M249 SAW; then it was repurposed to the M16A2 for ammunition compatibility. When fired from a short-barreled M4, lower muzzle velocity led to decreased terminal effectiveness, and unburned propellant fired from the end of the barrel created a brighter muzzle flash and caused more combustion debris to be pushed back in the gas tube, dirtying the weapon.

All involved parties DRDO, OFB, and IA were not forth coming to fix the problems with MoD a passive overseer.
The press also has DDM who can't ask proper questions to find out answers.

Interestingly not much complaint about the INSAS LMG!

The US Army and Marines have gone for M4 and the heavier 7.62mm cartridge is for specialist role.
in fact the Marines have given up on the pistol armament for the officers.
B_Thakur or Manjgu tell me whats really wrong with the picture.
General rants we can get from the web.
I want real issues.

Not much complaint about the LMG because the round was developed for 22" barrel of the LMG and doesn't present much problem vis a vis Velocity and Maintenance.
Rest of the design defects for Insas rifle you can get from the web aplenty. I just wanted to point out the shortcomings of the OFB made bullet which actually helped bring out the design deficiencies.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 02 Nov 2018 03:07

Excellent insight.
So the round itself needed longer barrel hence accentuated some of the problems.

I see the barrel is 18.3 inches from the wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INSAS_rifle

vs

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/11.htm

So in other words the INSAS rifle is effectively already a carbine!
As M4 is ~18"
Why doesn't OFB provide a 22 " barrel as an option to match the cartridge ballistics?
May be for BSF and CAPF?
is the barrel field changable by the unit armorer?
I note the Ishapore SLR had ~21.7" barrel.

Gerald Bull once wrote in some book about the importance of barrel length to fully develop the velocity for the shot.

souravB, hats off to you for picking up this nugget.

One more question does OFB round match the NATO round ballistics?

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 475
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 02 Nov 2018 03:39

ramana wrote:Excellent insight.
So the round itself needed longer barrel hence accentuated some of the problems.

I see the barrel is 18.3 inches from the wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INSAS_rifle

vs

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/11.htm

So in other words the INSAS rifle is effectively already a carbine!
As M4 is ~18"
Why doesn't OFB provide a 22 " barrel as an option to match the cartridge ballistics?
May be for BSF and CAPF?
is the barrel field changable by the unit armorer?
I note the Ishapore SLR had ~21.7" barrel.

Gerald Bull once wrote in some book about the importance of barrel length to fully develop the velocity for the shot.

souravB, hats off to you for picking up this nugget.

One more question does OFB round match the NATO round ballistics?

On paper OFB round match the NATO round ballistics, but as I pointed out in my previous comment that how OFB is matching the ballistics with ~25% less chamber pressure and assuming everything else is similar is I do not get (atleast without more data from independent sources).

Also providing larger barrels in rifle is no solution. It increases weight, unwieldiness and cost. One of the reason for moving from SLR was weight and unwieldiness.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1812
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 02 Nov 2018 08:23

Which is tried to be addressed by Bullpup format (the length part)

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18932
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby chetak » 02 Nov 2018 10:10

So, a promising project is stymied at the very outset by giving it away to some grubby, unionized, entitled and low performing "workforce"


Indian Army To Replace INSAS With 6,50,000 Made-In-India Kalashnikovs: Deal With Russia Before Year End


Nov 01 2018

Indian Army To Replace INSAS With 6,50,000 Made-In-India Kalashnikovs: Deal With Russia Before Year End

India and Russia are expected to soon sign an agreement that will make way for indigenous production of assault rifles under the government’s ‘Make in India’ initiative. Indian Army will then have an advantage of producing Kalashnikov rifles at home, reducing the dependency to procure from abroad. The plan is to manufacture 6,50,000 Kalashnikov 7.62 mm AK-103 assault rifles which will progressively replace the INSAS and AK-47 rifles currently in operation.

LiveFist has reported that an inter-governmental agreement (IGA) will be signed between India’s Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and Russia’s JSC Kalashnikov Concern with the Indian company holding 50.5 per cent of the joint venture.

Since 2014, Kalashnikov has been hunting for a local partner to collaborate for production of the weapons. The proposal to tie up with Adani Group has been rejected by the government following the Rafale controversy. Raw materials for production of the rifles will also be sourced indigenously.

Among the AK-103s, the higher performing types will go to the front-line soldiers. Some of the features of the AK-103s include an attachment to mount under-barrel grenade launcher, being able to fold plastic butt, standard mounting rail to install night vision.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Viv S » 04 Nov 2018 14:59

Yet again the IA brass/MoD demonstrate that they aren't restrained by any consistent logic.

All this time we've been hearing that the IA needed 5.56x45/7.62x51 for conventional roles while retaining a 7.62x39 tool for CI Ops where stopping power takes precedence over accuracy at range.

And lo behold, they flip the whole thing on its head - the bulk of the army is to convert to 7.62x39 while units in field areas are to receive Caracal carbines and SiG battle rifles.

I don't know which is a worse prospect - that the IA planners are clueless or that the GoI is dictating purchases and the IA is merely along for the ride.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Nov 2018 04:10

VivS, I am glad they are getting rid of the 5.56 cartridge as its not suitable for Indian challenges with the incorrect rifle design.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 475
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 08 Nov 2018 05:28

The problem IMO is IA is going at the solution from a wrong direction.
Whenever any major infantry goes toward changing of it's firearms, it first chooses a suitable cartridge according to it's needs and then build a gun around it.
We blindly tried to follow US doctrine in the 80s and failed. We want to follow US now, but going to make do with a mix of US+soviet way due to budgetary constraints which isn't a great idea also.
There are numerous other caliber of cartridges available worldwide which can present a suitable solution to our problem. DRDO even played with its MINSAS and 6.8spc rounds. IA instead of working with, closed the door on the projects.
especially 6.8spc is a very good intermediate round for assault rifle. it is developed by some US SF people who fight in as much varied conditions as our army. Probably it or 6.5 telescoped is going to be the next cartridge for USArmy. We could have been ahead of the curve for once. Even MINSAS round is better alternative than 9mm pwd.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 08 Nov 2018 05:37

I agree the 9mm round is history for military use.
The tussle is between the 7.62x51 and the 7.62x39 and OFB makes both
That should count for something.

The old ballistics book had rule of thumb that the barrel length has to be as long as practical to fully develop the muzzle velocity based on the powder used.
That's why the old Afghan jezails were so long barreled and deadly at a distance.

Thanks for pointing out how the INSAS LMG was good because of its 22" barrel which is close to developing its full muzzle velocity.
Cant mess with physics.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 08 Nov 2018 05:58

ramana wrote:VivS, I am glad they are getting rid of the 5.56 cartridge as its not suitable for Indian challenges with the incorrect rifle design.

Ramana. They are not. The Caracal 816 Carbine is 5.56 and in todays day and age a Carbine is the same as a Assault RIfle. THere is no need for a PDW carbine in todays day and age.

The 7.62X51 as a DMR at a section level I understand
The 5.56X45 as a Carbine/ Assault Rifle to replace INSAS I understand (while not agreeing with).
The rest of the ARMY with 7.62 X39 when this is a requirement only for the RR and other troops in COIN duties I dont get.

There is no method to this madness. MY 13 year old would be able to plan t his better! HE makes better buying decisions on FIFA 2018!!!!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 08 Nov 2018 06:03

ramana wrote:I agree the 9mm round is history for military use.
The tussle is between the 7.62x51 and the 7.62x39 and OFB makes both
That should count for something.


Ramana sir it should count for little. The Army should decide on weapon based on how it wants to fight not on what OFB produces. OFB also produces the 5.56 x 45.
The 7.62X39 is a dhobi ka kutta.

ramana wrote:Thanks for pointing out how the INSAS LMG was good because of its 22" barrel which is close to developing its full muzzle velocity.
Cant mess with physics.


WHo says the LMG was a good weapon? Muzzle velocity is not the only thing. It had similar inherent design flaws as the INSAS and you have seen the video on BR itself about its reliability issues.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 08 Nov 2018 22:17

Basically it has to be either 7.62*39 or 5.56*45 not both.

INSAS design became outdated by 2000s and this was realised by DRDO Itself. But in spite of their begging for permission to start a new design, GSQRs was released only in 2008, which turned into MCI WS.

Indian 5.56 round has a slower burning propellant and therefore a longer barrel is required. it seems that ofb has solved this problem and now it is capable of making better rounds

There was no problem in insas carbine except for the fact that it could not fire Indian round. This problem will not be solved by foreign carbine imports also and has to be solved by better ammo which can be fired from a shorter barrel.

The present trend in western countries is to use 5.56 for Carbine, assault rifle, LMG and DMR

But it is supplemented with 7.62 x51 LMG & DMR also

So something like this can be done, in 11 men section

2 carbine 5.56 with ubgl
2 mag fed 5.56 LMG

2 dmr 7.62*51
1 LMG belt fed 7.62*51

4 assault rifle 5.56 (mgl, rcl, RPG etc)

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Nov 2018 04:27

Gyan wrote:Basically it has to be either 7.62*39 or 5.56*45 not both.

INSAS design became outdated by 2000s and this was realised by DRDO Itself. But in spite of their begging for permission to start a new design, GSQRs was released only in 2008, which turned into MCI WS.

Indian 5.56 round has a slower burning propellant and therefore a longer barrel is required. it seems that ofb has solved this problem and now it is capable of making better rounds

There was no problem in insas carbine except for the fact that it could not fire Indian round. This problem will not be solved by foreign carbine imports also and has to be solved by better ammo which can be fired from a shorter barrel.

The present trend in western countries is to use 5.56 for Carbine, assault rifle, LMG and DMR

But it is supplemented with 7.62 x51 LMG & DMR also

So something like this can be done, in 11 men section

2 carbine 5.56 with ubgl
2 mag fed 5.56 LMG

2 dmr 7.62*51
1 LMG belt fed 7.62*51

4 assault rifle 5.56 (mgl, rcl, RPG etc)


Gyan do you have the current inf bn platoon weapons holdings? Good to see that.
If there is a 7.62 lmg do we need 5.56?.
What is the diff between a carbine and an assault rifle in this day and age?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 09 Nov 2018 14:05

Kalashiknov’s for Army – end of fumble?

By Lt Gen Prakash Katoch


Read more at:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... pc.twitter

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1138
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 13 Nov 2018 14:38

ramana wrote:Excellent insight.

So in other words the INSAS rifle is effectively already a carbine!
As M4 is ~18"
?



M4 has a 14.5" (370mm) barrel length / The M16A3/A4 has a 20" barrel length.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 17 Nov 2018 19:28

Due to better propellants and metallurgy there is hardly any difference between 5.56*45 DMR, LMG, Rifle, Carbine. As seen in HK 416 IAR.

Faster & cooler propellant allows shorter barrel and better metallurgy allows for thinner barrel.

5.56*45 round is more versatile & adopting AK is regressive action compared to MCIWS

In the combination, I have suggested above 7.62*51 is primarily to provide longer reach & better ANTI MATERIAL effect in urban & jungle areas.

5.56*45 LMG is basically a rifle with bipod but essential for flanking movements & mobility. It's difficult to achieve high mobility with one person Manning belt fed 7.62*51. Gpmg.

But GPMG fire power & moral support is very important in majority of conflicts. Basically firefight is between GPMG, DMRs & grenade launchers with rifles as defensive weapons.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23293
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 19 Nov 2018 18:16

What are the latest RF automatons capable of? Test AK-12K and AK-15K


souravB
BRFite
Posts: 475
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 19 Nov 2018 21:32

ks_sachin wrote:
WHo says the LMG was a good weapon? Muzzle velocity is not the only thing. It had similar inherent design flaws as the INSAS and you have seen the video on BR itself about its reliability issues.

Sachin saab, nobody is overlooking inherent design flaws in Insas LMG. It's just that the OFB bullet in LMG didn't exacerbated the situation like it did in the rifle thus LMG had less problem compared to the rifle.

Gyan wrote:The present trend in western countries is to use 5.56 for Carbine, assault rifle, LMG and DMR

But it is supplemented with 7.62 x51 LMG & DMR also


So something like this can be done, in 11 men section

2 carbine assault rifle 5.56 with ubgl
2 mag drum/box fed 5.56 LMG like Squad automatic Weapon
2 1 dmr 7.62*51
1 LMG belt fed 7.62*51 would be too heavy to impact mobilty

4 6 assault rifle 5.56 (mgl, rcl, RPG etc)

Gyan ji, Although I agree with the bolded statement of yours, 7.62 x51 LMG is too heavy to carry and would be uncontrollable in automatic fire without any support. Major army's have moved from the concept and adopted lighter solutions.
list of LMGs operated by nations
I did some correction on your section distribution which I think might be more efficient during operations. Hope you don't mind.
Interestingly enough, all of these role could be taken up by the 6.8spc effectively and thus retains the logistical sweetspot.

Gyan wrote:Due to better propellants and metallurgy there is hardly any difference between 5.56*45 DMR, LMG, Rifle, Carbine. As seen in HK 416 IAR.

Faster & cooler propellant allows shorter barrel and better metallurgy allows for thinner barrel.

5.56*45 round is more versatile & adopting AK is regressive action compared to MCIWS

In the combination, I have suggested above 7.62*51 is primarily to provide longer reach & better ANTI MATERIAL effect in urban & jungle areas.

5.56*45 LMG is basically a rifle with bipod but essential for flanking movements & mobility. It's difficult to achieve high mobility with one person Manning belt fed 7.62*51. Gpmg.

But GPMG fire power & moral support is very important in majority of conflicts. Basically firefight is between GPMG, DMRs & grenade launchers with rifles as defensive weapons.

excellent analysis. I am a hopeful that IA would be propelled towards MCIWS once USArmy changes it's infantry cartridge from 5.56 to 6.8spc which they are seriously considering
Jane's article on NGSW
Also in the bold part, the GPMG fire could be received from IFVs or APCs. And in wars a soldier needs to fire at an enemy which is atleast 300-400m away and with a carefully selected caliber and a red dot those shots can be taken effectively. 5.56 is too weak for that and 7.62 is too heavy.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 21 Nov 2018 16:23

Caracal 5.56 deal seems to have been cancelled.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 21 Nov 2018 16:50

souravB wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
WHo says the LMG was a good weapon? Muzzle velocity is not the only thing. It had similar inherent design flaws as the INSAS and you have seen the video on BR itself about its reliability issues.

Sachin saab, nobody is overlooking inherent design flaws in Insas LMG. It's just that the OFB bullet in LMG didn't exacerbated the situation like it did in the rifle thus LMG had less problem compared to the rifle.

Gyan wrote:The present trend in western countries is to use 5.56 for Carbine, assault rifle, LMG and DMR

But it is supplemented with 7.62 x51 LMG & DMR also


So something like this can be done, in 11 men section

2 carbine assault rifle 5.56 with ubgl
2 mag drum/box fed 5.56 LMG like Squad automatic Weapon
2 1 dmr 7.62*51
1 LMG belt fed 7.62*51 would be too heavy to impact mobilty

4 6 assault rifle 5.56 (mgl, rcl, RPG etc)

Gyan ji, Although I agree with the bolded statement of yours, 7.62 x51 LMG is too heavy to carry and would be uncontrollable in automatic fire without any support. Major army's have moved from the concept and adopted lighter solutions.
list of LMGs operated by nations
I did some correction on your section distribution which I think might be more efficient during operations. Hope you don't mind.
Interestingly enough, all of these role could be taken up by the 6.8spc effectively and thus retains the logistical sweetspot.

Gyan wrote:Due to better propellants and metallurgy there is hardly any difference between 5.56*45 DMR, LMG, Rifle, Carbine. As seen in HK 416 IAR.

Faster & cooler propellant allows shorter barrel and better metallurgy allows for thinner barrel.

5.56*45 round is more versatile & adopting AK is regressive action compared to MCIWS

In the combination, I have suggested above 7.62*51 is primarily to provide longer reach & better ANTI MATERIAL effect in urban & jungle areas.

5.56*45 LMG is basically a rifle with bipod but essential for flanking movements & mobility. It's difficult to achieve high mobility with one person Manning belt fed 7.62*51. Gpmg.

But GPMG fire power & moral support is very important in majority of conflicts. Basically firefight is between GPMG, DMRs & grenade launchers with rifles as defensive weapons.

excellent analysis. I am a hopeful that IA would be propelled towards MCIWS once USArmy changes it's infantry cartridge from 5.56 to 6.8spc which they are seriously considering
Jane's article on NGSW
Also in the bold part, the GPMG fire could be received from IFVs or APCs. And in wars a soldier needs to fire at an enemy which is atleast 300-400m away and with a carefully selected caliber and a red dot those shots can be taken effectively. 5.56 is too weak for that and 7.62 is too heavy.


5.56*45, 7.62*39, 6.8*?
Are all mid power cartridges. They were only relevant as 7.62*51 rifle is heavy & long. With new technology, it does not make sense to introduce 6.8. We can use 7.62*51 which is more powerful.

All the conflicts have shown frontline soldiers prefer 7.62*51 in urban areas, jungles, mountains, deserts. Now what terrain is left? Modified light 7.62"51 belt fed gpmg is most liked weapon for urban fight by US soldiers.

That's why I put in three 7.62"51 weapons in a section.
In fact I forgot to put in 12.7mm sniper rifle for shooting through cover.

Soldiers with 5.56mm rifles, will be primarily assisting 7.62*51 weapons in support & defensive role.

7.62*51 belt fed gpmg will require logistical chain but most fire fights take place within footprint of base, which can run in more ammo. 7.62*51DMR can also act as LMG. Assuming that soldiers will be isolated is not a right assumption in majority of cases.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 475
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby souravB » 21 Nov 2018 19:13

Gyan wrote:
5.56*45, 7.62*39, 6.8*?
Are all mid power cartridges. They were only relevant as 7.62*51 rifle is heavy & long. With new technology, it does not make sense to introduce 6.8. We can use 7.62*51 which is more powerful.

The move from 7.62NATO was necessitated due to weight of both the rifle and the cartridge. The rifle is necessary to be made heavy to provide a counterbalance against the recoil. Also the cartridges are bigger in size, heavier thus soldiers could carry lesser quantity of rounds. These are just physics which cannot be altered however much technology we can throw at it. Hence the search for smaller rounds which can give a close ballistic performance.

All the conflicts have shown frontline soldiers prefer 7.62*51 in urban areas, jungles, mountains, deserts. Now what terrain is left? Modified light 7.62"51 belt fed gpmg is most liked weapon for urban fight by US soldiers.

If we are talking conflicts after WW2 and outside India then no, there is a clear trend of moving towards lighter rounds.
If we are talking in Indian context then our soldiers have always preferred the gun that is reliable not the round. They really haven't had much choice regarding 5.56NATO due to a unreliable gun and lesser quality rounds as already discussed above. Otherwise they use M16, TARs and mostly AKs in all the scenarios you mentioned. If you ask any soldier he will prefer TAR over AKs despite having smaller round.
If a round can have lighter weight with less recoil and comparable terminal ballistics with stopping power to a bigger round, why not look into that since we are already updating.

That's why I put in three 7.62"51 weapons in a section.
In fact I forgot to put in 12.7mm sniper rifle for shooting through cover.

Soldiers with 5.56mm rifles, will be primarily assisting 7.62*51 weapons in support & defensive role.

7.62*51 belt fed gpmg will require logistical chain but most fire fights take place within footprint of base, which can run in more ammo. 7.62*51DMR can also act as LMG. Assuming that soldiers will be isolated is not a right assumption in majority of cases.

Wars have changed and you have IFVs to support the troops with gpmgs. A troop or a section while moving will either be supported by armored vehicles with heavy fire power or gunships.
The US M240 weighs 12kg, IWI Negev weighs 8kg. I couldn't find other gpmgs lighter than that. So by these two I couldn't ask a soldier to carry these and required ammo while going to battle.

Caracal 5.56 deal seems to have been cancelled.

Never liked that deal. would have been better to give money to some small scale American gun maker like Knight's Armory or Vapr and ask them to partner up with some local manufacturer here and design something based on our requirements which will also be cheap to mass produce.
LMT worked with British and NZ in this way to make the L129A DMR and MWS respectively.
There are loads of designer gun makers in US and we could even have a competitive design showoff.
For an order of 100k and later follow ons, we could just buy the ip.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1377
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Nov 2018 12:34

Gyan wrote:Caracal 5.56 deal seems to have been cancelled.


Let the saga carry on..

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1812
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 22 Nov 2018 15:10

Gyan wrote:Caracal 5.56 deal seems to have been cancelled.


Good, if true. Could not understand the rationale.

If we have to get the guns from outside, then always better them direct from the big guns (US, Russia, Germany, ...)

Even better would be if private Indian entities can buy out specialist firms based abroad lock, stock and barrel (and IPs)

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 22 Nov 2018 16:58

Manish_P wrote:
Gyan wrote:Caracal 5.56 deal seems to have been cancelled.


Good, if true. Could not understand the rationale.

If we have to get the guns from outside, then always better them direct from the big guns (US, Russia, Germany, ...)

Even better would be if private Indian entities can buy out specialist firms based abroad lock, stock and barrel (and IPs)

Manish you betray a lack of awareness of small arms development. Do read up.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1812
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 22 Nov 2018 21:13

Sure. Pls. share the reading material

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 23 Nov 2018 00:33

Manish_P wrote:Sure. Pls. share the reading material

I dont believe in transfer of technology or transfer of knowledge.
Read up. Small arms design is a great area.
More interesting for me than the LCA or Arihant or....
It tells me also of our psych as a nation...

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1812
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 23 Nov 2018 08:26

Ah.

I think you have misconstrued my post.

I said - 'if' we have to import then..

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 23 Nov 2018 10:02

My restated 11 person section :-


So something like this can be done, in 11 men section

2 carbine 5.56 with ubgl or AR with UBGL
2 mag fed 5.56 LMG or AR with bipod

2 dmr 7.62*51 with secondary LMG role
1 LMG belt fed 7.62*51 as main fire base

1 Anti material rifle 12.7mm primarily to shoot through cover

3 assault rifle 5.56 (mgl, rcl, rpg, medical attached as required etc)

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 23 Nov 2018 19:55

Manish

You have pointed out design thinking which emerged in 1970s and 1980s. Now after prolonged conflicts it's being revised and 7.62*51 is making come back.

whether it is India or abroad the marketing by arms manufacture also plays a major factor in the articles you read on the social and formal media

the intermediate calibre is pushed very hard because it has the potential to generate a demand of billions of dollars in small arms and ammunition

If you compare 5.56 Vs 7.62 there is substantial difference but when you compare intermediate calibre versus 7.62 then the difference reduces and the issue of economics and versatility also comes up

Since world war 1 requirement of three calibres has always been necessary being the pistol caliper, the rifle calibre and the heavy machine gun calibre

Attempt to develop develop a caliber to address all the three requirements has not been successful

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 23 Nov 2018 20:30

ramana wrote:Before INSAS system the IA had 7.62x51 SLR and LMGs. All using same cartridge.
When 5.56x45 mm was viable, the IA wanted a small arms system that uses the cartridge.
This resulted in INSAS rifle, carbine and LMG.

Carbine failed the IA tests and won't go into it.
Rifle on paper looks good with right barrel length etc.
However design and production glitches caused many frustrations.
- Magazine cracks, hot lubricating oil spray, jamming.
Worst was the impotence against terrorist armed with Ak-47 guns.
Per the theory INSAS should have the stopping power.: barrel length, rifling twist, muzzle velocity etc.

If the bullet did not have stopping power its because of loss of velocity which is cartridge driven as barrel length etc are already set.
Are OFB made cartridges up-to snuff?

All involved parties DRDO, OFB, and IA were not forth coming to fix the problems with MoD a passive overseer.
The press also has DDM who can't ask proper questions to find out answers.

Interestingly not much complaint about the INSAS LMG!

The US Army and Marines have gone for M4 and the heavier 7.62mm cartridge is for specialist role.
in fact the Marines have given up on the pistol armament for the officers.
B_Thakur or Manjgu tell me whats really wrong with the picture.
General rants we can get from the web.
I want real issues.


Ramanna,

One of the problem is to separate propaganda from the actual issues

The second problem is that there are multiple views about the actual issues also

The limitations of 5.56 calibre is inherent in the said calibre and is present in all the bullets. The Indian round designed by DRDO and manufactured by ofb was supposed to be better in some respects compared to NATO around but it fell short. This limitation was not excessive and round continued to be useful and fulfilled the army parameters. as I understand OFB is now able to manufacture nato round and this is no more an issue

There was no problem in LMG because manufacture of LMG was stopped in 2001 :P this manufacturing was restarted in 2012 after the problems in metallurgy of the barrel was solved.

Looking back the design of insas was started in 1975 -80 and manufacturing should have been started year 1985-90 snd completed by 1995-2000. But the production run continued till 2015 and by that time the design was outdated

Lot of abuse of insas is by the import lobby. I have repeatedly pointed out on this forum that DRDO analysed the problems in insas and at least since 2005 their request to design and develop a new rifle has been pending with the Army

Ultimately when Army released the requisite GSQRs to develop a new rifle, DRDO has been able to develop MCI WS which has been forcefully shut down by the army for a quick import. How quick, we all know.

7.62x51 calibre is making a comeback due to battlefield experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.

Due to improvements in a design, propellant and metallurgy a 7.62x51 rifle/gpmg can be made much shorter and lighter. Hence DMRs, GPMGs are being added at section level.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1377
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 24 Nov 2018 11:04

Image
Insas Mk-1C with new 30 round polymer magazine. :twisted:

Edit: looks like the handguard design has been improved.

Excalibur now comes with pic rails. With Punjab police SOG.
Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darshand, nash, ravikr and 54 guests