Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

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.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 10 Jun 2020 03:11

S-400 is a strategic purchase. A completely different kettle of fish. No comparison to a basic armament like an assault rifle.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 806
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Shameek » 10 Jun 2020 03:20

The AK deal was made during Putin's visit in 2018 along with the S400 and others. As per reports back in March last year, the inter-governmental agreement was prepared and signed in the shortest possible time. Then the joint venture was set up with OFB and thus it sits ever since. Meanwhile, the OFB rifle factories are sitting almost empty with a stagnating workforce.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9062
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jun 2020 21:43

https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/ ... 20962?s=20 ----> You realise the Indian Army in all their wisdom actually ditched the “stock” AK-203 telescopic butt stock for a more basic earlier design found on the AK-103?

Image

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 Jun 2020 00:43

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KSingh_1469/status/1271091808135720962?s=20 ----> You realise the Indian Army in all their wisdom actually ditched the “stock” AK-203 telescopic butt stock for a more basic earlier design found on the AK-103?

So what is wrong. The stock is still foldable. There are other things we have not done as well but those are preferences based on op use envisaged.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9062
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 12 Jun 2020 00:57

Tweet comments are not mine.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 12 Jun 2020 00:58

The front handguard looks different as well. The picatinny rail is on the bottom instead of the top. Which makes sense to me because what accessory would you mount on top of the handguard? Optical sights would be further back, over the receiver and a foregrip would need the rail on the bottom of the handguard.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 Jun 2020 04:48

nachiket wrote:The front handguard looks different as well. The picatinny rail is on the bottom instead of the top. Which makes sense to me because what accessory would you mount on top of the handguard? Optical sights would be further back, over the receiver and a foregrip would need the rail on the bottom of the handguard.

What would you attach to the bottom of this handguard Nachiket?

THat picatinny is probably there for a hand grip.

Again all the images of COIN RR troops I have see are with at most scope and a hand grip.

These option cater for that. I think.

With the butt I think once again we have let cost dictate the amount of comfort we provide the troops...

Or a decision made by the generals with little input from below - after all this did not require extensive troop trials.

If you look at the pictures of Sig 716 - they have a telescopic stock yes?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 12 Jun 2020 08:06

ks_sachin wrote:
nachiket wrote:The front handguard looks different as well. The picatinny rail is on the bottom instead of the top. Which makes sense to me because what accessory would you mount on top of the handguard? Optical sights would be further back, over the receiver and a foregrip would need the rail on the bottom of the handguard.

What would you attach to the bottom of this handguard Nachiket?

THat picatinny is probably there for a hand grip.

Again all the images of COIN RR troops I have see are with at most scope and a hand grip.

Not sure what I said differently. I mentioned that it makes sense to me to have it on the bottom for a foregrip. The Russian one has it on the top, which I do not understand.

CalvinH
BRFite
Posts: 660
Joined: 15 Jul 2007 04:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby CalvinH » 12 Jun 2020 09:43

ks_sachin wrote:
nachiket wrote:The front handguard looks different as well. The picatinny rail is on the bottom instead of the top. Which makes sense to me because what accessory would you mount on top of the handguard? Optical sights would be further back, over the receiver and a foregrip would need the rail on the bottom of the handguard.

What would you attach to the bottom of this handguard Nachiket?


UBGL,Laser pointer, flashlight..

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 Jun 2020 10:18

CalvinH wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:What would you attach to the bottom of this handguard Nachiket?


UBGL,Laser pointer, flashlight..


And how do you hold the weapon?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 Jun 2020 10:24

nachiket wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:What would you attach to the bottom of this handguard Nachiket?

THat picatinny is probably there for a hand grip.

Again all the images of COIN RR troops I have see are with at most scope and a hand grip.

Not sure what I said differently. I mentioned that it makes sense to me to have it on the bottom for a foregrip. The Russian one has it on the top, which I do not understand.

Apologies.
I have see Russian army with additional stuff on the front Picatinny....

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 14 Jun 2020 07:38

Split the difference between AK 103 and 203, and just call it AK-153 :) I hope they have done a proper deal to license and produce the compact AK-204 (or 154) for officers, radio-operators, tank-crew, etc., and also an RPK for the section LMG, and keep the platoon-level logistics streamlined.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 15 Jun 2020 05:19

ParGha wrote:Split the difference between AK 103 and 203, and just call it AK-153 :) I hope they have done a proper deal to license and produce the compact AK-204 (or 154) for officers, radio-operators, tank-crew, etc., and also an RPK for the section LMG, and keep the platoon-level logistics streamlined.

Not going to happen is it?

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Jun 2020 13:59

Ks_sachin ji,
Can you share your email id, if you don't mind?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 15 Jun 2020 16:28

Bala Vignesh wrote:Ks_sachin ji,
Can you share your email id, if you don't mind?

Sachmath1
Then the symbol
And then g...l.com

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 15 Jun 2020 22:42

ParGha wrote:Split the difference between AK 103 and 203, and just call it AK-153 :) I hope they have done a proper deal to license and produce the compact AK-204 (or 154) for officers, radio-operators, tank-crew, etc., and also an RPK for the section LMG, and keep the platoon-level logistics streamlined.

Didn't we do a separate deal for carbines and select the CAR-816? So now we'll be using all 3 major types of rifle ammo - 5.56mm for the CAR, 7.62x51mm for the SIG-716, and 7.62x39mm for the AKs. :roll:

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 16 Jun 2020 16:56

nachiket, all of that was before COVID-19 and Chinese heating up the LAC. With budget constraints and possible need to arm a lot more men in difficult terrain, you cannot have a logistical kichadi of "a little bit of this, and little bit of that".

The China-India War of 1962 was a wake-up slap, and everyone (GOI, OFB, IA) quickly rationalized on the 7.62x51mm and 9x19mm. Apart from the new SLRs and MMGs, they even modified the SMLE production line to make lakhs of sturdy 7.62x51mm Ishapore rifles.

Is it too much to hope that the current crisis will drive some sense into them?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 17 Jun 2020 02:42

ParGha wrote:nachiket, all of that was before COVID-19 and Chinese heating up the LAC. With budget constraints and possible need to arm a lot more men in difficult terrain, you cannot have a logistical kichadi of "a little bit of this, and little bit of that".

The China-India War of 1962 was a wake-up slap, and everyone (GOI, OFB, IA) quickly rationalized on the 7.62x51mm and 9x19mm. Apart from the new SLRs and MMGs, they even modified the SMLE production line to make lakhs of sturdy 7.62x51mm Ishapore rifles.

Is it too much to hope that the current crisis will drive some sense into them?



You r very optimistic....

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 24 Jun 2020 05:02

ParGha wrote:Is it too much to hope that the current crisis will drive some sense into them?

I gave up any expectation of common sense prevailing in any defence acquisition process in India long ago.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby kit » 25 Jun 2020 02:54

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a32758215/drone-scope-smash-2000-plus/

This weapon could be very useful in Punjab..!!! ,,shoot down all those paki drones !!


Image

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 30 Jun 2020 01:37

The circus continues. Yet another type of assault rifle FN FAL Scar (7.62 X 51 MM) to be bought for special forces in a Rs 200-300 Crore deal.

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby m_saini » 30 Jun 2020 02:16

Is it weird that I hope foreign government put sanctions on us for export of small arms? Seems ridiculous that we have to import every single rifle in the world.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 30 Jun 2020 02:27

m_saini wrote:Is it weird that I hope foreign government put sanctions on us for export of small arms? Seems ridiculous that we have to import every single rifle in the world.

Seems ridiculous that DRDO cannot design a small arm that is user friendly and that OFB cannot deliver quality in manufacturing..

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Jun 2020 02:33

We like imports. this was settled so long ago. No point in breast-beating.
Ass long as user doesn't decide to buy local this will continue.

and will have a Janes Catalog of weapons. Every one of them.

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby m_saini » 30 Jun 2020 03:16

ks_sachin wrote:Seems ridiculous that DRDO cannot design a small arm that is user friendly and that OFB cannot deliver quality in manufacturing..


Valid point but the first iteration is never going to be perfect. I was recently reading about ww2 tanks and how the US rejected the superior british designs in favor of their own inferior ones, and not just once. They kept doing it till they surpassed through production and improvements.

Now we're not US and DRDO OFB aren't General Motors and neither do I know the inner workings of Army or gov. But seems quite stupid that they can't get together and get the rifles from the private sector, if not from DRDO+OFB.

But it's never going to be the same quality as the imported ones, atleast not for a couple of (rifle) generations and from the looks of it, they want the indigenous ones to be the same quality, if not better than the imported ones from the get go.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 30 Jun 2020 04:25

ks_sachin wrote:Seems ridiculous that DRDO cannot design a small arm that is user friendly and that OFB cannot deliver quality in manufacturing..

Sachin saar, the last rifle that the DRDO was tasked to design was the MCIWS. But the IA's GSQR's were so fanciful that it failed along with every foreign entrant in that competition. After that we straight away jumped to the selection of AK-203 and SIG-716. Was the DRDO asked to develop a new firearm in either of those categories which subsequently failed to pass muster?

I hate the fact that OFB quality control causes problems and that the INSAS's design issues were never fully solved, but in the current case the DRDO wasn't even given a chance was it? ALso keep in mind that the new AK is going to be manufactured by OFB...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 30 Jun 2020 04:35

OT here, so pardon me.

Now we're not US and DRDO OFB aren't General Motors


The US was 'we're' at one point in time. The 18th largest force (behind Hungary, Argentina, etc) in the world. In 18 months they became #1.

A book that is very heavily promoted by Baba Kalyani - that is where I heard it first) - talks about how it was done. And, I think Kalyani draws his inspiration from that book.

For lazy guys like me, a little over an hour vid:



Or for a more complete version, read 'Freedom's Forge'.

It can be done.

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby m_saini » 30 Jun 2020 04:56

NRao wrote:The US was 'we're' at one point in time. The 18th largest force (behind Hungary, Argentina, etc) in the world. In 18 months they became #1.
It can be done.


That video is brilliant. I'm at 23 minute mark and he's describing how chrysler got into manufacturing tanks.

However, we're worse than US were in 1940. Adjusting for inflation, their GDP in 1940 was greater than our GDP today and they also had their own manufacturing. But yeah I do 100% agree that it can be done. Much respect to people like Kalyani, hoping their dreams get realized.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby NRao » 30 Jun 2020 05:22

@little over 57: how there was no money for anything

And, then funnily @little after 59 min, how the gov advisors wanted to use the Soviet model to start the production. And, then he addresses what the Soviets went through - America contributed 20% towards the GDP of the Soviets.

The book is a LOT more fascinating.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 30 Jun 2020 06:54

nachiket wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Seems ridiculous that DRDO cannot design a small arm that is user friendly and that OFB cannot deliver quality in manufacturing..

Sachin saar, the last rifle that the DRDO was tasked to design was the MCIWS. But the IA's GSQR's were so fanciful that it failed along with every foreign entrant in that competition. After that we straight away jumped to the selection of AK-203 and SIG-716. Was the DRDO asked to develop a new firearm in either of those categories which subsequently failed to pass muster?

I hate the fact that OFB quality control causes problems and that the INSAS's design issues were never fully solved, but in the current case the DRDO wasn't even given a chance was it? ALso keep in mind that the new AK is going to be manufactured by OFB...


At least that is the original AK design and not the ******** version that became the INSAS.

And I don’t care if we import the weapon from mars as long as we get the best for the boys. We are not a peace time army where we can afford the luxury or iterating through small arms...If the iteration had to be done then it should have been with the INSAS and the interactions should have been deep.

Anyhow enough on this from me.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 30 Jun 2020 06:55

m_saini wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Seems ridiculous that DRDO cannot design a small arm that is user friendly and that OFB cannot deliver quality in manufacturing..


Valid point but the first iteration is never going to be perfect. I was recently reading about ww2 tanks and how the US rejected the superior british designs in favor of their own inferior ones, and not just once. They kept doing it till they surpassed through production and improvements.

Now we're not US and DRDO OFB aren't General Motors and neither do I know the inner workings of Army or gov. But seems quite stupid that they can't get together and get the rifles from the private sector, if not from DRDO+OFB.

But it's never going to be the same quality as the imported ones, atleast not for a couple of (rifle) generations and from the looks of it, they want the indigenous ones to be the same quality, if not better than the imported ones from the get go.


A tank of slightly inferior quality is okay.

A rifle of inferior quality that does not do the basics well kills...

Please don’t compare apples with oranges...

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1281
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 30 Jun 2020 06:57

ramana wrote:We like imports. this was settled so long ago. No point in breast-beating.
Ass long as user doesn't decide to buy local this will continue.

and will have a Janes Catalog of weapons. Every one of them.


You know what sir...I am ok as long as the grunt has a reliable weapon to kill the Pakis or Chinese....

Small arms are not the same as tanks etc....

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7672
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 30 Jun 2020 07:59

ks_sachin wrote:At least that is the original AK design and not the ******** version that became the INSAS.

And I don’t care if we import the weapon from mars as long as we get the best for the boys. We are not a peace time army where we can afford the luxury or iterating through small arms...If the iteration had to be done then it should have been with the INSAS and the interactions should have been deep.

Anyhow enough on this from me.

You did not address any of the points I raised. DRDO has its share of the blame for the current situation. OFB has (a lot) more. But they aren't the only ones. The Army top brass and the people who create the GSQR's have failed their men too. They couldn't finalize on a single caliber to standardize on, kept flip-flopping back and forth, made an impossible GSQR for a multi-caliber weapon then decided on inducting 3 different types of rifles with 3 different ammo types. DRDO is not to blame for this mess.

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby m_saini » 30 Jun 2020 08:01

ks_sachin wrote:
A tank of slightly inferior quality is okay.

A rifle of inferior quality that does not do the basics well kills...

Please don’t compare apples with oranges...


I wasn't comparing them and it hardly makes a difference if you die from your rifle not working vs getting cooked in your tank. The point was US even *during* a world war opted for their own inferior design even if it meant that their own soldiers would be massacred in Normandy (shermans couldn't penetrate the panzers).

Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Rs_singh » 30 Jun 2020 08:53

nachiket wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:At least that is the original AK design and not the ******** version that became the INSAS.

And I don’t care if we import the weapon from mars as long as we get the best for the boys. We are not a peace time army where we can afford the luxury or iterating through small arms...If the iteration had to be done then it should have been with the INSAS and the interactions should have been deep.

Anyhow enough on this from me.

You did not address any of the points I raised. DRDO has its share of the blame for the current situation. OFB has (a lot) more. But they aren't the only ones. The Army top brass and the people who create the GSQR's have failed their men too. They couldn't finalize on a single caliber to standardize on, kept flip-flopping back and forth, made an impossible GSQR for a multi-caliber weapon then decided on inducting 3 different types of rifles with 3 different ammo types. DRDO is not to blame for this mess.


Nachiket and ks_sachin,

This blame ping pong is gonna continue between the Army and the DRDO/OFB combine. Neither side is to blame, frankly. What you have essentially is a monopoly on both ends. Till this breaks, this cycle will continue. We can keep debating rifles, tanks, APCs, sights, quality, ultimately the root cause is existence of a monopoly. Let DRDO/OFB compete with the private industry, ensuring quality for the IA while also allowing exports so the feedback is not a single data point(customer).

Ks_ sachin, I feel the pain of not having a basic rifle which operates as advertized. The Colt M4 had multiple teething problems. For brevity, I’ll list two: magazine would jam in the heat because of expansion so changing mags became impossible. The firing pin would come loose and dislodge under heavy use and high heat. Both not good ideas for a hot combat zone. Eventually, the M4 overcame these issues, but all weapon systems have teething problems and all weapon systems have designed in flaws. We need to adopt what we have, take it to the extremes, provide accurate feedback and develop follownons. In other words, set up and invest in an ecosystem. IA treats own products as hot garbage. Let’s be honest. DRDO has 0 incentive to improve development cycles and develop new technology. Similarly OFB has 0 incentives to improve production cycles. We can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. This is one definition of insanity.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1616
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 30 Jun 2020 11:35

Vips wrote:The circus continues. Yet another type of assault rifle FN FAL Scar (7.62 X 51 MM) to be bought for special forces in a Rs 200-300 Crore deal.


Fn Scar has been in trials with NSG and Para SF for over an year with limited induction (refer my earlier posts in this thread).

It has already been adopted by SPG with NSG and AFSOD likely to adopt it soon. It is the pinnacle of small arms design (though just a tad above it's near peers from SiG and HK).

US SOF adopted and discarded SCAR for reasons not fully explained. One reason was that they did not deem 7.62 NATO to be as important compared to the fall in ammunition carrying capacity. Air power support was more readily available, so range wasn't as much of a critical issue. Also SCAR H was significantly heavier than M4, which wasn't as bad as Media made it out to be.

In indian context, Scar-H will replace pimped out AKMs with add on rails, grips and heavy milled dust covers. In such a configuration, with add on optics with full magazine it can weigh up to 6 kg, while Scar-H in similar config will weigh around 5 Kg. I am not comparing with Tavor and ME because they are too few in numbers to properly equip all SF soldiers.

Overall a much awaited move, provided all AFSOD is armed with it.
Last edited by Thakur_B on 30 Jun 2020 22:47, edited 1 time in total.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 30 Jun 2020 16:42

As Thakur_B said, it is an old procurement plan and in the work for quite some time.
News courtesy: MeshaVishwas

Thakur_B wrote:US SOF adopted and discarded SCAR for reasons not fully explained.

AFAIR in one of the gun channel video of a retd. SF guy, he said his unit guys didn't like the reciprocating charging handle. Incidentally it was SOCOM who wanted it, but guys on the ground due to minimal exposure to reciprocating handles couldn't adapt to it and had some injuries. Since they also have a leeway to have a weapon of choice, they just simply ignored the scars next time onwards. Thus it went into a quite death in USSOCOM.
Oh and the handle is on the left side too. Provided more people are right handed than not, it exacerbated the problem.

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby raghava » 30 Jun 2020 21:06

According to report today in the Financial Express, https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/more-firepower-for-indian-army-to-buy-small-arms-for-special-forces-from-us-based-company/2007444/ this purchase also involves 1400 nos of Scar-L rifles as well.

A question to the small arms gurus here - the Scar-L comes with barrel lengths 10", 14" and 14.5" according to manufacturer's website. I can understand what 10" and 14" barrel lengths bring to the field in terms of range and accuracy, but why 14.5". What can a 14.5" barrel do that the 14" cannot ? Or is it just different metallurgy perhaps ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54422
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Jun 2020 22:37

Rs_singh wrote:
nachiket wrote:You did not address any of the points I raised. DRDO has its share of the blame for the current situation. OFB has (a lot) more. But they aren't the only ones. The Army top brass and the people who create the GSQR's have failed their men too. They couldn't finalize on a single caliber to standardize on, kept flip-flopping back and forth, made an impossible GSQR for a multi-caliber weapon then decided on inducting 3 different types of rifles with 3 different ammo types. DRDO is not to blame for this mess.


Nachiket and ks_sachin,

This blame ping pong is gonna continue between the Army and the DRDO/OFB combine. Neither side is to blame, frankly. What you have essentially is a monopoly on both ends. Till this breaks, this cycle will continue. We can keep debating rifles, tanks, APCs, sights, quality, ultimately the root cause is existence of a monopoly. Let DRDO/OFB compete with the private industry, ensuring quality for the IA while also allowing exports so the feedback is not a single data point(customer).

Ks_ sachin, I feel the pain of not having a basic rifle which operates as advertized. The Colt M4 had multiple teething problems. For brevity, I’ll list two: magazine would jam in the heat because of expansion so changing mags became impossible. The firing pin would come loose and dislodge under heavy use and high heat. Both not good ideas for a hot combat zone. Eventually, the M4 overcame these issues, but all weapon systems have teething problems and all weapon systems have designed in flaws. We need to adopt what we have, take it to the extremes, provide accurate feedback and develop follownons. In other words, set up and invest in an ecosystem. IA treats own products as hot garbage. Let’s be honest. DRDO has 0 incentive to improve development cycles and develop new technology. Similarly OFB has 0 incentives to improve production cycles. We can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. This is one definition of insanity.


So all three stake holders are silos with zero interest in developing small arms.
And IA being an infantry heavy should have a large stake in getting a reliable efficient rifle and LMG.*

And the MoD which should integrate all three is a passive observer and file pusher.
Delay is the worst form of denial.

See after Kargil combat experience and the decades of CI ops with RR, there should have been a report on rifle usage and performance. Instead we got ad hoc multi-caliber and a buffet of requirements which no one make can handle.


* I still don't get why they can't lighten the FN/SLR and add the auto select lever.
Ammo compatible with the LMG. Even the Israeli LMG looks like evolution of the BREN.

Anyway glad they settled on one model finally.

Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussio

Postby Rs_singh » 30 Jun 2020 22:57

ramana wrote:
Rs_singh wrote:

So all three stake holders are silos with zero interest in developing small arms.
And IA being an infantry heavy should have a large stake in getting a reliable efficient rifle and LMG.*

And the MoD which should integrate all three is a passive observer and file pusher.
Delay is the worst form of denial.

See after Kargil combat experience and the decades of CI ops with RR, there should have been a report on rifle usage and performance. Instead we got ad hoc multi-caliber and a buffet of requirements which no one make can handle.


* I still don't get why they can't lighten the FN/SLR and add the auto select lever.
Ammo compatible with the LMG. Even the Israeli LMG looks like evolution of the BREN.

Anyway glad they settled on one model finally.


Hey Sir, I wouldn’t necessarily say stakeholders have no interest in developing small arms. I would argue they have no incentive to improve current performance. DRDO develops a shitty rifle which it delivers after significant delays and under quality because it has no competitor to challenge it. OFB has no incentive to improve production volume and quality because again their jobs are secure and no one is taking production orders away from them. IA knows, when push comes to shove the GOI will give them X orders of you name it from Y country in order to keep the services happy and at par with each other. After all, IN gets its romeos, IAF gets rafales and fauj does the fighting. They have to give something to Army too.

Buck stops with the RM but RM is also the minister for def production. He also has to make sure those factories keep operating. In the end, the system is built to maintain status quo and inherently not change and won’t change unless you challenge it externally.

On a technical point since you mentioned multi caliber. IA argues it needs 5.56 for conventional ops and 7.62 for CT ops. I’ve personally never understood this. There was an old report which completely unsubstantiated this claim but that is collecting dust you know where. Anyway, the gist was to make up for lack of lethality by substituting ammo with hollow points. Some babu made the claim this ammo replacement would be too expensive since it will require new production lines. Completely myopic of the view that new rifles and training are more expensive then ammunition replacement. The gravy train must continue.

Sir, NEGEV,which I believe is what you are referring to is a derivative of the M240 Bravo. Though both probably share the same Browning origin.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AshishAcharya and 34 guests