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.
Post Reply
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Prem Kumar wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/natio ... ops-253773

IA to procure 50,000 Bullet proof jackets., In a mix of NIJ level III (8KG) and Level IV (10KG).

This seems to be a relatively small procurement to test the waters with newer standards for BPJ as the previous order for 1.86 Lac BPJ to SMPP is still under delivery.
What's the weight of the SMPP jackets? Per news reports, they offered protection at NIJ Level III+ (capable of stopping AK-47 steel core rounds)
10 to 10.5 KG iirc. Army is seeking level III+ vests to defeat steel core ammunition at 8 Kgs. This is far more stringent than GSAQR 1438 which was the base to formuate the IS Code: 17051:2018 to be used henceforth for certification of BPJ. As per the IS code, the jackets would have to weigh 9.68 Kgs or lighter for a medium sized jacket. DRDO was working with IIT Delhi to bring the weight around 7.5 KGs. Similarly BARC designed Bhabha Kavach is 9.5 Kgs for level IV.

So this seems to be testing the waters for next round of procurement.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Thakur_B wrote:Fn launches new Evolys LMG in 5.56 and 7.62 as Fn Minimi successor. They have managed to shave off 2.5 KGs off 5.56 Minimi.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ve-new-lmg
The 2.5 kgs weight saving got me interested on how they managed it. I suspected increased use of polymers wherever possible, but they seem to have really thought it through..

Found details here. The feeding mechanism sure is different (although that is more for the convenience of attaching lengthy optics)

Image
FN Herstal used aluminium and composite material wherever possible, and adopted design features that optimise each single element. One of these is definitely the receiver, which forward part has a peculiar reticular structure; the receiver is made of a single piece of aluminium, obtained by casting and then machined, which features on top an integral one-piece long STANAG 4694 NATO Accessory Rail, a shorter one being available at the bottom. M-Lok slots are integral part of the receiver allowing adding further accessories, such as i.e. laser pointers, at no weight cost if nothing is installed.
and the side positioned feeding system
To load the belt in a machine gun you usually raise the cover, put the new belt on the feed tray, close the cover, pull the cocking handle to chamber the first round, switch back the selector to auto and start again operating. Problem: this system is not compatible with a long top accessory rail. To solve this issue FN Herstal developed a wholly new feeding mechanism, the belt being as usual fed from the left. The mechanism is now on the side of the machine gun, the feed cover being hinged on the left-hand side. The ammunition is guided and positioned in a nearly automatic way by closing the cover, considerably reducing the risk of jamming on the first round, as it used to be with previous loading systems. Moreover, in the old system one or two links usually remained in the tray, the gunner needing to get rid of them before loading the following belt; this is not anymore the case with the new FN system, as it automatically ejects the last link.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »



Gun jesus Ian McCollum explains why guns it's hard to make guns, why it takes close to a decade to take a gun into production and why do some guns do well in trials but fail in production.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... 468621.cms

American buyers are so desperate for ammunition that they will buy anything, including from OFB. :rotfl:
A good chance for OFB to smoothen out their NATO standard 5.56x45 ammunition. For a long time they have listed SS109 and M193 equivalent ammunition on their website but no takers for their premium prices and "world class" quality.

PS: For those who do not know, ammunition prices have been at record high in USA with ammunition shortages all around due to covid, riots, elections and panic over proposed legislations.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

https://www.mynation.com/india-news/mul ... des-qttd9d


Solar industries awarded ₹400 Cr contract for Shivalik grenades. First consignement will be for 40,000 grenades. The article says that Indonesia has also placed an order to Solar industries for Shivalik grenades.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

https://www.armasentactical.com/

^^ A new Indian firm making soldier apparell, backpack, accessories, vests etc. Founder is ex Para SF and is active on DFI.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Image

TAR-21 featuring rails on upper hand guard with CRPF, based on Bulgarian Arsenal's ARM1F1 AKMs. ARm1 series of AKMs are very highly regarded and command a high premium in US small arms market. There are only minor differences between ARM1F1 and TAR-21. Ordnance factory Trichy had also recently started manufacturing M6 UBGL from Arsenal. TAR-21 has been appreciated for it's quality by the users which is unusual for any ordnance factory product. IMO Ornance Factory Trichy has some sort of agreement with Arsenal where they supply parts kits for them to assemble.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... es-beyond/

True Velocity, one of the ammunition OEMs for US NGSW has demonstrated conversion of existing 7.62x51 small arms to their 6.8 TVCM polymer case ammunition via a simple barrel swap.

They are the second firm after SiG Sauer whose 6.8x51 SiG Fury ammunition shall be compatible with 7.62x51 small arms with barrel swap.

Sig ammunition offers 20% more energy than 7.62x51 while using existing ammunition manufacturing technology. TVCM offers the advantage of significantly lighter ammunition and possibly lower costs of manufacturing when the technology matures.


This is why it makes more sense to go for 7.62x51 rifles instead of AK203 to allow for future caliber upgrade. AK308, which is derived from AK203 family with features from AK12 would be a better choice.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Thakur_B wrote:https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... es-beyond/

True Velocity, one of the ammunition OEMs for US NGSW has demonstrated conversion of existing 7.62x51 small arms to their 6.8 TVCM polymer case ammunition via a simple barrel swap.

They are the second firm after SiG Sauer whose 6.8x51 SiG Fury ammunition shall be compatible with 7.62x51 small arms with barrel swap.

Sig ammunition offers 20% more energy than 7.62x51 while using existing ammunition manufacturing technology. TVCM offers the advantage of significantly lighter ammunition and possibly lower costs of manufacturing when the technology matures.


This is why it makes more sense to go for 7.62x51 rifles instead of AK203 to allow for future caliber upgrade. AK308, which is derived from AK203 family with features from AK12 would be a better choice.
The AR15 family has a lot of flexibility in terms of what can be done. By changing certain parts a single rifle can be a 5.56, or 6.5 or 6.8 or7.62 east as well as NATO , along with.458 SOCOM, or .50 bewolf, or 300 blackout.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

X post form Armoured vehicles thread.
ks_sachin wrote:
Pratyush wrote:^^^
OFB has produced millions of FNFALs and INSAS rifles. Yet they can't be trusted to make a new rifles.
.
Cannot compare the production of the 2. One was screwdrivergiri of a great design and mature manufacturing. INSAS anything but. OFB cannot be trusted with a new rifle because their previous effort on a new rifle prod were not nice.
Doesn't mean that the organization cannot be reformed. Or production related issued fixed with the weapon. I would say that it is an important part of the learning process WRT producing any new weapon. As
Thakur_B wrote:
explains.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:X post form Armoured vehicles thread.
ks_sachin wrote: Cannot compare the production of the 2. One was screwdrivergiri of a great design and mature manufacturing. INSAS anything but. OFB cannot be trusted with a new rifle because their previous effort on a new rifle prod were not nice.
Doesn't mean that the organization cannot be reformed. Or production related issued fixed with the weapon. I would say that it is an important part of the learning process WRT producing any new weapon. As
Thakur_B wrote:
explains.
So who will bell the cat? The GOvt sits twiddling its thumbs while men loose their life due prod quality issues!!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The solution has to come from the Indian Army & The MOD.

OFB has to be told in no uncertain terms to get its act together. Else abolish the OFB and sell the plants to Indian companies.

The only people who have the power to do so are in the MOD and not the Indian Army.

Having said so, I have been for the last few day's looking for a formal or informal documentation regarding QC or design issues related to INSAS. But both Google & Bing have come up short.

CAG & INSAS throws a report of missing INSAS from Kerala police.

Though, I have come across an article dating back to 2010 in DNA Now, army wants to dump the indigenous Insas rifle

Relevant excerpt from the article.
A serving senior officer from the infantry said it was baffling that the infantry directorate has issued a global tender for replacing the Insas. “It has been designed precisely according to our quality requirements. If we have new requirements, we should ask the ordnance factory board to rework it, and not scrap the project,” the officer, who was involved in the induction of Insas, told DNA. He pointed out that the rifle had undergone several refinements, so it is now a “good weapon”.
The global RFP (request for proposal) issued for a new assault rifle for the army stipulated that it had to be lighter than 3.5kg, making impossible for the Insas to even compete in the tender; an Insas weighs 4.1kg.
Not sure if weight reduction can be performed on the INSAS. Besides which the Sig 716 purchase has taken this issue out of the equation.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

It is difficult to make AK pattern rifles like INSAS light.

First, the long stroke piston assembly is long and heavy.

Second, instead of barrel extension having locking lugs, the lugs are in trunnion in AK pattern rifles.

Third, the long stroke piston creates carrier tilt which causes downward pressure on the bolt carrier, so rails for movement of piston carrier have to be robust. Therefore aluminium is not the preferred material for construction of receiver, rather steel is.

All the above easily can add up half a kilo in weight.
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Igorr »

Thakur_B wrote:It is difficult to make AK pattern rifles like INSAS light.
...
All the above easily can add up half a kilo in weight.
3.4 kg for M16A4
3.35 kg for AK-12 (2020) :)
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Igorr wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:It is difficult to make AK pattern rifles like INSAS light.
...
All the above easily can add up half a kilo in weight.
3.4 kg for M16A4
3.35 kg for AK-12 (2020) :)
What about a 7.62x39 chambered ak12
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Igorr »

ks_sachin wrote:
Igorr wrote: 3.4 kg for M16A4
3.35 kg for AK-12 (2020) :)
What about a 7.62x39 chambered ak12
Just as M16's derivatives for 7.62x41, AK-15 (7.62x39) and AK-308 (7.62x41) have slightly more heavy full magazines relative to 5.56(5.45). Their bolt mechanism and barrel are crude enough to work with more energized rounds. So, no significant difference in weight between contemporary M16 and AK. The really important difference between them is with maintenance time and cost during the rifle life. Check for you, how many work hours the soldiers lose for personal weapons instead tactic exercises provided the need for oiling care for M16 after each shooting range.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Igorr wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:It is difficult to make AK pattern rifles like INSAS light.
...
All the above easily can add up half a kilo in weight.
3.4 kg for M16A4
3.35 kg for AK-12 (2020) :)
M16A4 has a 20" barrel and metal handguard. Ak12 has 16" barrel and polymer hand guard, so AR pattern rifles are incredibly light compared to AK pattern rifle.

A more similar comparison would be Ak202 and M4 where M4 is lighter than AK202 with longer barrel and the difference is over half a kilo. Latest URG variants of M4 have further reduced the weight by replacing 3,6 and 9 o clock rails on hand guard with Mlok, making m4 lighter than many sub machine guns.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Igorr wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: What about a 7.62x39 chambered ak12
Just as M16's derivatives for 7.62x41, AK-15 (7.62x39) and AK-308 (7.62x41) have slightly more heavy full magazines relative to 5.56(5.45). Their bolt mechanism and barrel are crude enough to work with more energized rounds. So, no significant difference in weight between contemporary M16 and AK. The really important difference between them is with maintenance time and cost during the rifle life. Check for you, how many work hours the soldiers lose for personal weapons instead tactic exercises provided the need for oiling care for M16 after each shooting range.
Are you saying a M16A4 needs cleaning after each visit to the shooting range?
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Igorr »

ks_sachin wrote:
Are you saying a M16A4 needs cleaning after each visit to the shooting range?
Yes, I am. It must be cleaning and oiling every day if using, otherwise you risk to face failure in an unexpected real operation. Its gas-operated system is vulnerable for dust. Comparative to M16/M4 no failure is expected for AK in case of no-cleaning. So the maintenance of M16/M4 is relatively more complicated then AK. For a big army in harsh condition it may be significant.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

Igorr wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
Are you saying a M16A4 needs cleaning after each visit to the shooting range?
Yes, I am. It must be cleaning and oiling every day if using, otherwise you risk to face failure in an unexpected real operation. Its gas-operated system is vulnerable for dust. Comparative to M16/M4 no failure is expected for AK in case of no-cleaning.
Igorr, the problem you are referring to was in the early days of the gun and was experienced by US soldiers using M16 during Vietnam war, all those issues have been fixed. I have shot M16 at outdoor ranges many-times and did not encounter any problems, without any cleaning between usage.
Very accurate, low recoil (compared to AK) and good range.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Milled receiver Insas with pic rails and modern furniture seen somewhere in service. OFB calls it Indian Assault Rifle or IAR.
Image
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Image

East German stg 942 in 5.56x45 prototype. This was being developed for Indian market and came very close to being adopted before Insas.
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Igorr »

VinodTK wrote: Very accurate, low recoil (compared to AK) and good range.
If all is so good, why they want to leave gas operated M16/M4 towards a piston operated new design? They say one of the cause: they look for a more reliable platform.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

https://twitter.com/Viv_Krishnan/status ... 4159565824

Vivek Krishnan of SSS defence has hinted that they might have an offering other than P-72 for the carbine RFI.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Igorr wrote:
VinodTK wrote: Very accurate, low recoil (compared to AK) and good range.
If all is so good, why they want to leave gas operated M16/M4 towards a piston operated new design? They say one of the cause: they look for a more reliable platform.
But the fact that they have stuck with the M4 for so long means nothing?
They have said more reliable but have they specified a piston vs gas operated..
This is a debate that will never be settled…
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Image

Soldiers at Commando School Belgaun gear up for Cambrian Patrol. A rare image of CBRN suit in use.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

^^^^

I have always wondered a CBRN suit is air tight and the Indian environment is hot & humid. The heat build up within the suits must be quite oppressive in the absence of any medium of heat exchange.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

Is this suit airtight? Jacket seems to be open at bottom.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

https://defencematrix.in/indian-armys-d ... portunity-

Indian Army’s Dragunov Upgrade: Why “SSS Defence” should have this opportunity

Image

Image

Image
The Dragunov in the Indian army is clearly intended for a squad Designated Marksman Rifle role. The ammunition - 7.62x54 is a ballistically superior round as far as marksmanship is concerned. The SIG716 on the contrary is an assault rifle that can also double up as a DMR. Also, the Dragunov was outfitted with a PSO 1 scope far earlier while the SIG716 still lacks a fixed magnification scope for marksman roles. Also note that many more users have earned their stripes on the Dragunov than on the SIG. In effect, the Dragunov may be an older weapon but is in the Indian context still superior as a squad semi-automatic DMR. Yes, the army would like to expect more from the Dragunov but not in the form of range enhancement. The weapon is optimal for 700-800 m and nothing can improve that range. However, accuracy isn’t about range.

When target interdiction is still at 500-800 m (that’s the lions’s share of mission needs), being consistent, user friendly & adaptable to modern day mission criteria is more important. For example, by allowing for the fitment of a new adapter & stock, the SSS Defence upgrade significantly reduced recoil. The lower recoil allows a user to get back to firing position on the next round. By allowing a full-length rail that can accommodate a modern day 1-10x Mil Dot scope & a clip on thermal night vision optic together in an in-line configuration, the weapon can be used for night operations. These advantages allow the Dragunov to be relevant for a further decade or so without incurring significant expenditure on new weapons and training. Some day of course the army will have to think of a new indigenous DMR weapon since we don’t believe the SIG is that weapon that can go head-to-head with even a Dragunov.

It is to be noted that the SSS Defence doesn’t aim to increase the range of the Dragunov. It aims to make the soldier behind the weapon more lethal & consistent.
Our intention is that the SSS Defence upgrade will bridge the gap in performance at a very affordable price. After all, it’s well known that our stock of Dragunov’s hasn’t reached a stage where barrel degradation is rampant. On the contrary, the lack of training and rationing of ammunition has meant that the barrels & operating systems have more to offer.
The price competition is not a problem for us. We have already invested in the R&D and can offer a product that’s price competitive “with or without large volumes”. An important point from our end “We’re not fearing the Russian upgrades. We’re the rank outsiders while they’re the OEM. Rationally speaking, “they should think more of us than we of them”. I would also want our own users to ask a simple query - do we expect the Russian OEM’s to offer upgrades in small quantities while also providing the MRO in India? Foreign OEM’s with all due respect are in India for big volumes & big contracts. Back in their own country, they’d do everything that their forces want even if the gains aren’t superlative. In essence, we’re their trump card. SSS Defence offers an R&D intensive, custom built with mass manufacturing alternative across the product spectrum be they legacy upgrades or de nuovo weapons. We don’t shy away from experimentation if it gives our forces an edge. This is what the OFB was meant to do but did not. As long as that parameter is understood, the decision on who to approach for an upgrade is a rather simple one.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

An excellent article. Seems like a fairly straightforward decision to me. For the Army to show their skin in the Atmanirbhar plan, with none of the OFB baggage to worry about
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

The dragunov upgrade boat has already passed. Army is in talks with Kalashnikov for OEM certified upgrades.

Vivek krishan was whinging about the situation on Twitter.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

^^^ Has there been any comparative trial by the Indian army regarding the accuracy between the SVD and the 716, after fitting it with an equivalent optical sight.

The 2 weapons have a gap of nearly 60 years between them. A change in design and manufacturing technology and newer materials should make a big difference in accuracy of weapons.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

Has there been any comparative trial by the Indian army regarding the accuracy between the SVD and the 716,
Does it matter in any way?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

If 716 when fitted with a 4x sight and if it happens to be comparable or even slightly inferior to SVD.

Then it gives the IA an option at the platoon level with individual rifle men who can take advantage of the full range of 716. With a slightly revised training regime.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ParGha »

jamwal wrote:
Has there been any comparative trial by the Indian army regarding the accuracy between the SVD and the 716,
Does it matter in any way?
The SVD uses 7.62x54Rmm rounds, and the 716 uses 7.62x51mm rounds. Most Indian Army units don't carry unlinked 7.62x54Rmm rounds (Special Forces and tank units have 7.62x54R linked machine-gun rounds), so it is an interoperability issue. OTOH, there is plenty of 7.62x51mm unlinked rounds that you can use in an emergency (Bren LMG, regular infantry with 716s, CAPFs with old SLRs).
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

https://twitter.com/Kunal_Biswas707/sta ... 85773?s=20

Look at the insane amount of recoil in burst mode on the SIG. It is physically displacing the soldier on the ground. Even in single shot mode it is going to cause bruised shoulders for sure. And with just iron sights seen in most cases we aren't even going to get all the benefits of range and accuracy. One has to wonder how much testing was done prior to choosing this as a replacement for the INSAS. I'm willing to bet the recoil is worse than that on the good old 1A1 SLR which had a significantly longer barrel.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Thakur_B wrote:The dragunov upgrade boat has already passed. Army is in talks with Kalashnikov for OEM certified upgrades.

Vivek krishan was whinging about the situation on Twitter.
How many Dragunovs are there in IA for this upgrade?

The army seems to like to put its head in a lion's mouth and hope it doest bite!

By now AK 203 saga should have taught them a lesson.
Besides now Russia is becoming a Chinese Lion.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ParGha »

ramana wrote:How many Dragunovs are there in IA for this upgrade?
~3,600 SVDs.
nachiket wrote:Look at the insane amount of recoil in burst mode on the SIG. It is physically displacing the soldier on the ground. Even in single shot mode it is going to cause bruised shoulders for sure. And with just iron sights seen in most cases we aren't even going to get all the benefits of range and accuracy. One has to wonder how much testing was done prior to choosing this as a replacement for the INSAS.
To be fair, it is not the most stable shooting position. Also, unlike the reactions on the Twitter feed, I don't see much corruption in the sale of SIG 716 ($980 wholesale vs $1200 retail) like we saw with Tavors ($3500 wholesale vs $2500 retail). That said, the recoil was a systematic problem one could see from miles away.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

ParGha wrote:
nachiket wrote:Look at the insane amount of recoil in burst mode on the SIG. It is physically displacing the soldier on the ground. Even in single shot mode it is going to cause bruised shoulders for sure. And with just iron sights seen in most cases we aren't even going to get all the benefits of range and accuracy. One has to wonder how much testing was done prior to choosing this as a replacement for the INSAS.
To be fair, it is not the most stable shooting position. Also, unlike the reactions on the Twitter feed, I don't see much corruption in the sale of SIG 716 ($980 wholesale vs $1200 retail) like we saw with Tavors ($3500 wholesale vs $2500 retail). That said, the recoil was a systematic problem one could see from miles away.
Don't know about the twitter feed but I am not alleging corruption of any sort. Even in the case of Tavors, they were for the Paras so we do not know what accessories and sights were included in the order.

My concern is purely for the recoil and the usual concern that a foreign weapon system may not have been put through as rigorous testing as our desi ones usually are and a hasty decision made because all prior procurement attempts failed and we just had to get something. The burst/full-auto mode on the SIG appears to be as useless as the full-auto mode on the original FN-FAL which we completely got rid of in the 1A1 anyway. If you could see the recoil problem from a mile away how couldn't the army? It uses the same cartridge as the 1A1 but has a 5" shorter barrel. The shooting position may not be ideal but it looks like any position other than prone would be a problem with this thing.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

I remember watching videos of the Sig since past 7 years.

Almost all were by civilian shooters (though some were Ex-mil), most of them firing from standing position (or prone) and almost all of them firing single round and then single round rapid fire. Haven't seen any doing full auto/bursts, as they were not supposed to be used in that way (that role would be by the Squad automatic weapon)... in our case also full-auto (suppression fire) will be handled by the LMGs, won't it?
Post Reply