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
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

India to manufacture indigenous made carbine for defence forces in a step towards 'Atmanirbhar Bharat.
Yes, it is about atmanirbharata or self-reliance, but more importantly, it is one of the first signs of "jointness," or the army, navy and air force planning to work together in designing and developing a weapon.

The Caracal, a carbine that the Indian army was planning to buy from the United Arab Emirates, has been put aside for the moment, at least and there are plans for an indigenously made carbine for the army, navy and air force. Instead of the 95,000 odd Caracal carbines, there is a plan for 4.2 lakh carbines to be made in India. Initial estimates suggest that the allocation for the project is going to be over Rs. 5,000 crores.

The production of over 4 lakh carbines will take time. Which is why there is a plan to allot the contract to two manufacturers, whether in the private or the public sector. This means that the L1 (or the firm with the best bids may get to make over 2 lakh carbines, but the firm that is L2 will get the remaining amount. This will ensure that the weapons are quickly delivered. A decision about splitting of contracts if they take longer than 3 years is yet to be taken but could be in the coming days. This is also something the armed forces favour.

The indigenous manufacture of something like a carbine has been discussed earlier. The argument, sources said, is simply this: why import something like a carbine that is not very high-tech. Why can't it be made in India, even by collaborating with a foreign firm? Such a process has already been initiated with plans for the joint manufacture by India and Russia of the AK-203 (Kalashnikov) assault rifle in a VIP constituency in Uttar Pradesh. A similar project for the carbine is entirely possible and the defence ministry is expected to take a decision on this very shortly.
I hope private sector (SSS/PLR/Bharat Forge) gun whether local or through tie-up is opted for otherwise what steps would the MOD take to ensure there is no repeating the INSAS saga?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Do we know what ammunition is planned for use in the weapon?
sanjayc
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 21:40

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by sanjayc »

Can't JVPC fulfill the need of a carbine? (I don't know much about guns -- just asking)
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:Do we know what ammunition is planned for use in the weapon?
5.56 NATO
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 »

sanjayc wrote:Can't JVPC fulfill the need of a carbine? (I don't know much about guns -- just asking)
NO. Caliber is to small. Can at most as a personal defence weapon for certain roles.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4514
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

What was the reasoning behind 5.56 for INSAS ? I know it went on the lines of an injured soldier being more of a liability for the enemy, but did the IA specify it in their GSQR?
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

Tanaji wrote:What was the reasoning behind 5.56 for INSAS ? I know it went on the lines of an injured soldier being more of a liability for the enemy, but did the IA specify it in their GSQR?
Carbines are close quarter weapons meant to be light and easy to handle during close quarter engagements, larger caliber bullets could ricochet and cause problems.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Carbine is like super duper pistol.
Basically with loger barrel and high rate of fire.

Most second line troops like transport, non.infantry cn be armed with carbines.

I thought 9mm cartridge has reached its limits.

7.62x 51 is too powerful.

5.56 doesn't have power or stopping power.

But has commonality with INSAS family.
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 »

Tanaji wrote:What was the reasoning behind 5.56 for INSAS ? I know it went on the lines of an injured soldier being more of a liability for the enemy, but did the IA specify it in their GSQR?
IPKF. We had SLRs and found them a problem as the LTTE had AKs.
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 »

VinodTK and Ramana,

You are both slightly of the mark.

All carbines are rifles, but not all rifles are carbines. Likewise, all assault rifles are rifles, but not all rifles are assault rifles. Some carbines are assault rifles. All three categories describe specific, functional features.

Rifle - a long arm with a rifled barrel.

Carbine - a rifle with a shorter barrel.

Assault rifle - a rifle (or carbine) capable of select fire and chambered for an intermediate cartridge or even a standard cartridge as we have seen a para version of the FNFAL in 7.62 NATO and even the Galil in 7.62.

So the M4 which is std issue in US Army is called a Carbine. The M4 replaced the M16 in 2010 in the Army while the Marines converted sometime in 2015 or so. A lot of people may call the M4 an assault rifle I think based how it’s used.

I may be corrected by more learned people.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The US is a unique case for all the front line troops have the same weapon.

In India's case i am not sure how this will translate. Unless we get clarity on the roles specified for assault rifle, and carbine. Because the 7.62*39 was intended for short range work only.
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 »

Yet in the Russian army 7.62*39 is used for long range work as well.

Plus I was talking about the confusion in nomenclature.

My point also is that the difference between an assault rifle and carbine is non-existent in todays day and age and our reference to Carbine (the previous posts) hark back to the day when we had a 9mm Sterming SMG which was called the carbine.

The move to 5.56 kinda took away some of the nomenclature issues. 7.62 then became more a Designated Marksman Rifle within a squad.. But both were still rifles but the 5.56 could also be called an assault rifle because it came with a shorter barrel and was lighter as it used a lighter cartridge.
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 »

The US is not unique. They just have a different TOE. Along with the M4 they have a M249 or the M240 at a squad level.

The Bundeswehr uses the HK 416 as standard issue with HK 417 used as a DMR.

The Standard issue in the UK army is the L85A2 OR L85A3 5.56 but the tank crew and pilots are issues a compact version of the L85A2 but this still fires the 5.56 NATO.

The Caracal 816 that was proposed to the IA is considered by many to be a copy of the HK416 (same designers) yes we call the former a carbine and the latter a assault rifle. Go figure.

Funnily enough if you go to the Caracal website then for the Caracal 816 the longer version of the rifle are called Carbines where as the shorter versions are called PDW and Compact. All still fire 5.56 NATO.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:The US is not unique. They just have a different TOE. Along with the M4 they have a M249 or the M240 at a squad level.

.
This is what I get for being terminologically imprecise.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

The report is somewhat vague. Are the 3 services going to come up with requirements for an ab-initio design, or will it be selected from a bunch of existing vendors?

The Made-in-India label is something I will take with a pinch of salt. They are giving an analogy about AK-203 as a Made-in-India product. This is typical obfuscation where license production is being touted as Made in India

I hope they select a truly IDDM product, since there are both private and public entities who have the ability and demonstrated working designs.
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 »

Prem Kumar wrote:The report is somewhat vague. Are the 3 services going to come up with requirements for an ab-initio design, or will it be selected from a bunch of existing vendors?

The Made-in-India label is something I will take with a pinch of salt. They are giving an analogy about AK-203 as a Made-in-India product. This is typical obfuscation where license production is being touted as Made in India

I hope they select a truly IDDM product, since there are both private and public entities who have the ability and demonstrated working designs.

This is the carbine I think that is being talked about.

https://i.imgur.com/9TgEWBH.jpg

Thakur_B had also posted that ARDE has floated a tender to invite private parties for manufacture etc….He can shed more light on this.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

5.56x45 has been much vilified in both Indian and American armed forces

The major cribs about 5.56x45 are

1. Lack of lethality -
Primary complaint of Indian armed forces. 5.56x45 is plenty lethal, subject to proper shot placement. Proof of the same is all Special Forces primary chose 5.56 weapons. Using optics improves shot placement manifold and this is the reason why Indian use case results in lower lethality.

2. Lack of range - Main gripe of US armed forces where 14 inch barrel M4 were outgunned by PKM wielding Taliban.

3. Lack of penetration - Penetration against vest wearing opponents is superior compared to 7.62x39, which is why Russians opted for 5.45x39. US wants to defeat level IV vests, which is why they have opted for 6.8x51. However 5.56x45 is affected by foliage and light cover where 7.62x39 has an advantage.

What makes 5.56x45 superior to all alternative ammunition
1. Weight - An ordinary soldier can carry far more ammunition.
2. Recoil - very manageable, improves hit probability.
3. Weapons - Light weight weapons are abundant.
4. Versatility - Incredibly versatile for battles up to 300 meter engagement.

Just my 2 paise.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Thanks.
Very good pros and cons.
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 »

So for want of an optics a rifle was lost!!!!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I don't understand the optics point WRT, INSAS. Even the stock version of the weapon had a rail for mounting a scope. If accuracy was an issue. The army could have easily ordered a day optic for the rifle over the last 25 years of service of the weapon. .

Secondly, if lethality of the firearm is dependent on the available optical scope mount. Then should it also not be a factor for AK47, as it has no options for mounting optics?

Or Indian army jawans automatically become better shots with the AK 47?
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:I don't understand the optics point WRT, INSAS. Even the stock version of the weapon had a rail for mounting a scope. If accuracy was an issue. The army could have easily ordered a day optic for the rifle over the last 25 years of service of the weapon. .

Secondly, if lethality of the firearm is dependent on the available optical scope mount. Then should it also not be a factor for AK47, as it has no options for mounting optics?

Or Indian army jawans automatically become better shots with the AK 47?
The original versions of the INSAS had very limited real estate for mounting accessories. But like everything the Army did not invest in making life easy fo the infantryman. Forget Optics when were ballistic protection vests or proper helments made standard for all troops?

Instead like BR the Army top brass is enamoured by fancy tanks, fancy helicopters, fancy missiles....

If you read what Thakur_B has stated regarding shot placement
Using optics improves shot placement manifold and this is the reason why Indian use case results in lower lethality.
The AK has probably the same problem but is predominantly used in COIN but lethality is traded off by the modus operandi in COIN as well as the robustness of the weapon.

The INSAS only in its 1C avatar seemed to overcome its problems but by then the reputation has been set - thanks to OFB and DRDO.
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 630
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by souravB »

ks_sachin wrote: The INSAS only in its 1C avatar seemed to overcome its problems but by then the reputation has been set - thanks to OFB and DRDO.
Sachin saar, merely placing a rail over the dust cover doesn't amount to much. Sure one can put an optic but it can't retain zero due to myriad of problems like vibration, thermal expansion etc. It is a Band-Aid over 3rd degree burn.
Needs training regime change at the infantry school level where jawans would need to be trained in reacquiring zero, optic maintenance & operation, acquiring target, maybe even low level servicing for some frequently occurring issues.
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 »

Yes Saar,
However it was just one of the problems. The build quality also seemed to have gone up.

However on the point you raised wouldn’t a scope be mounted on the rails on front receiver?
souravB
BRFite
Posts: 630
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by souravB »

ks_sachin wrote: The build quality also seemed to have gone up.
I cannot comment on build quality of INSAS 1C since I haven't held one yet. But AFAIK the changes mainly include machined receiver & FRP furniture. It might solve some maintenance & longevity issues. But unfortunately does not solve much of the problems for employment of optics.
However on the point you raised wouldn’t a scope be mounted on the rails on front receiver?
If we're talking about IA which predominantly employs AK & INSAS with piston operation, Handguards get hotter than the receiver. They(INSAS 1C & most AK handguard mods) are also attached to the gas tube. so heat is the big problem when mounting optic on handguard. On top of this, 1C has FRP handguard with rails screwed on where each bends differently.

[caveat] All optics on all platforms need to be re-zeroed. How frequently is dependent on how the rails are built on the platform & where the optic is mounted.[/caveat]
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/FrontalForce/status ... JZAuXLILPw ---> Defence Ministry clears arms procurement cases worth over Rs 28,732 crore for defence forces including armed swarm drones, carbines, and bulletproof jackets.

https://twitter.com/FrontalForce/status ... JZAuXLILPw ---> Defence Acquisition Council meeting headed by Rajnath Singh cleared proposal for bulletproof jackets with enhanced protection against the threat of enemy snippers to our troops deployed along the LoC & in close combat operations in counter-terrorism ops: Defence Ministry.
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 »

souravB but the problem you have described is common to the AK type rifles is it not. So the Insas is not unique. Even the Russians mount their scopes on the dust cover is it not.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Russians use zenitco rails which mate the dust cover to lower handguard. The lower handguard is friction fit to the receiver while upper handguard is mated to lower hand guard with screws.

Optics aside AKM is a mostly trouble free platform. The same cannot be said for INSAS.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

SSS defence has launched its M72 carbine, AR15 based, in 5.56x45. the carbine was the one spotted in SSS Defence promo video. Meanwhile their P72 platform has not progressed beyond 7.62x39.
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 »

Thakur_B wrote:Russians use zenitco rails which mate the dust cover to lower handguard. The lower handguard is friction fit to the receiver while upper handguard is mated to lower hand guard with screws.

Optics aside AKM is a mostly trouble free platform. The same cannot be said for INSAS.

Canm we do the same for the Insas IC?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Russians use zenitco rails which mate the dust cover to lower handguard. The lower handguard is friction fit to the receiver while upper handguard is mated to lower hand guard with screws.

Optics aside AKM is a mostly trouble free platform. The same cannot be said for INSAS.

Canm we do the same for the Insas IC?
https://ddpdoo.gov.in/product/products/ ... s-1c-rifle

The product page for the INSAS 1C states that the weapon has a quick mount for day and night sights.

https://ddpdoo.gov.in/product/products/ ... -ces-items

Hell even the folding stock INSAS has the optics provided.

https://ddpdoo.gov.in/product/products/ ... ault-rifle

So does the Ishapore assault rifle.

I believe that nearly all OFB firearms produced over the last decade had the ability to fit optics to them.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

ks_sachin wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Russians use zenitco rails which mate the dust cover to lower handguard. The lower handguard is friction fit to the receiver while upper handguard is mated to lower hand guard with screws.

Optics aside AKM is a mostly trouble free platform. The same cannot be said for INSAS.

Canm we do the same for the Insas IC?
The charging handle position and removable gas tube release latch make for a difficult upgrade.

FAB tried.
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,

It is not about the optics. Yes, they have the mounts. The problem is that the mount is on the dust cover. That means that every time the rifle is opened for cleaning, the optics have to be zeroed.

Every time the front receiver is opened to clean the gas tube, the sights have to be zeroed.

This is a pain in the butt and clearly not a user-centric design from the ARDE.

As Thakur_B mentioned, the Russians use a Zenitco mod to overcome this problem on the AK but the INSAS because it is not a pure copy and uses the charging handle design of the SLR is now a "dhobi ka kutta"!!!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Sachin, i am sorry for being obtuse on this particular issue.

But I just don't understand why the optic and the gun will lose zero. Just because the dust cover is removed and then reinstalled after cleaning.

To me it reflects one of the following 2 issues.

1) it's a problem of tolerance of fit and finish and not of the optics itself. I.e the dust cover doesnt fit correctly every time it's removed and re attached.

2) the experience of a sight losing zero is of first generation optics, which were a lot more finicky and maintenance intensive. As compared to the more modern systems. But the reputation has stuck on.

Note that the issues i am reflecting on are not mutually exclusive.
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:Sachin, i am sorry for being obtuse on this particular issue.

But I just don't understand why the optic and the gun will lose zero. Just because the dust cover is removed and then reinstalled after cleaning.

To me it reflects one of the following 2 issues.

1) it's a problem of tolerance of fit and finish and not of the optics itself. I.e the dust cover doesnt fit correctly every time it's removed and re attached.

2) the experience of a sight losing zero is of first generation optics, which were a lot more finicky and maintenance intensive. As compared to the more modern systems. But the reputation has stuck on.

Note that the issues i am reflecting on are not mutually exclusive.
Pratyush,

I am not the expert here so perhaps souravB and Thakur_B can pitch in.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Piyal.g
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 24 Jul 2022 22:38

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Piyal.g »

1) Any updates on Ak -203?
We have already received the first lot of 70,000 which was off the shelves. The rest 6,00,000 pieces were intended to be produced in the Amethi plant. Since the Russia-ukr war started seems there is no progress on this front.
This is the worst part of dealing with Russia, delays.

2) Any pics of the new Ak 203 in the hand of our jawan? Just wants to see how the final product looks.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Image

F-Insas project name revived from the dead as the original project by the same moniker was closed in 2015.

AK203 version seems to be mostly original Russian one, stock cannot be seen in the press releases.

Tried and tested BEL holographic sights.

Mirror polish shoes, where would IA be if the shoes can't be shined.

Older gen vest and mono NVGs. Elbow and knee pads are add-on instead of being integrated into uniform, which means they will look good in parades but will slip away in actual combat.

No comments on radio as it isn't visible, but if it is an SDR, then it would be great.
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 »

Thakur_B so what you are saying is that this F-INSAS thing is more old wine in a new bottle. Future being a misnomer as it is already behind the times...
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

It's old wine in new bottle, but keep in mind this is old wine in a dry state. Even Desi tharra would be appreciated.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Disappointment aside. Is the equipment fit out superior to the existing set up of infantry. Or just about on par?
Post Reply