Small Arms Thread

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Dec 2010 14:12

neerajb wrote:If the caliber selection is so rigid i.e. at base level before combat then the whole purpose of this multi caliber is defeated. What is the advantage of this against say INSAS 'Family' of weapons.

A multi caliber weapon would be of great advantage to IA. We would not have to use two types of assault rifles. The current situation where we use INSAS for conventional warfare and AK-47 for COIN would not be required.

IMO there would be no commonality of training as well because the calibers are so different and the only modules shared would be pistol grip, part of receiver and butt.

That would be much better than operating two different assault rifles.

It would be much better if they could adapt existing INSAS for NATO 7.62X51 round (with heavier barrel for LMG) in addittion to 5.56X45 (both LMG & AR) with quick barrel change.

With that, how would the weapon even remain INSAS? Practically everything would have to be changed. Read armenT's excellent posts on this topic.

I am wondering whether India even manufactures/uses all the calibers mentioned in the article?

All except for 6.8mm.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Dec 2010 14:12

> It is worth noting that currently there is no operational assault rifle in the world which satisfies the specs asked for by IA.

precisely the right attribute to get into a IA GSQR

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Dec 2010 14:20

Singha wrote:> It is worth noting that currently there is no operational assault rifle in the world which satisfies the specs asked for by IA.

precisely the right attribute to get into a IA GSQR

Yeah..that had come to my mind too while I was typing my post.

However, in this case it is worth noting that absence of such rifle may be due to lack of trying. Note that no other Army in the world operates in such varied conditions.

So, I do not know if development of such a weapon is feasible or not. But I am certain that if it is feasible then such a weapon would prove to be very useful to IA.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Dec 2010 16:47

neerajb wrote:And the Arjun saga continues. I don't understand IA's love for firangi maal and total neglect of indigenous stuff. IN has always been builder's navy, IAF has been falling in line lately with Tejas/ALH/LCH but IA is as stubborn as ever. They don't want Arjun even though it has proved it's mettle but some super duper 40 ton tank with all the gizmos/firepower one can imagine and now this Star wars multi caliber AR for FINSAS. They seem to be least interested in desi maal or evolutionary design. Either they are utterly foolish or corrupt.

Now what to make out of this:

For keeping it light for the soldier, the rifle required is modular and should facilitate replacement of sub assemblies without the use of any specialist tools. IA is also asking is it can have multi caliber barrel change capability. The calibers it is looking at is (aa) 5.56 X 45mm, (ab) 7.62 X 39mm, (ac) 7.62 X 51mm, (ad) 6.8 X 43mm and (ae) 6.5 Grendel.
Who will carry the ammunition for all those calibers? If they want to keep it all light, who will bear the logistics for all those subassemblies for all those calibers? If they really wish to reuse enemy's ammo then why not simply pick up their weapons and use them instead of this complex scheme.

Cheers....

Before jumping the gun and blaming IA for this and that and for asking unobtanium, it would have been great if you had done some research. The RFP PDF is available online and this is what it says with respect to the barrel thing:

Modularity.

Is the weapon modular and facilitates replacement of subassemblies without the use of any specialist tools?

If the weapon is modular then :-
(i) Is it possible to have multi caliber barrel
change capability for the following calibers.
(aa) 5.56 X 45mm.
(ab) 7.62 X 39mm.
(ac) 7.62 X 51mm.
(ad) 6.8 X 43mm.
(ae) 6.5 Grendel.

(ii) If the answer to the previous question is yes then:-

(aa) Which calibers of barrels can be offered?
(ab) Are different lengths of barrel for same caliber? Give details.
(ac) Does a change in caliber necessitate having different magazines?
(ad) What is the length and weight of the rifle for different calibers of barrels?
(ae) Can the different caliber barrels be changed by the firer under field condition or can only be changed in a workshop?
(af) Which other components need to be changed along with the barrel in a weapon having multi caliber barrel changing capability?
(ag) What types of ammunition can be fired from the weapon?

So, what is a question from IA's part was changed to 'must have' requirement by DDM and then we've our usual hall-golla...

And BTW, this is something else the RFP says:

OEMs are requested to indicate the minimum quantity of weapons with which , they would be willing to offer transfer of technology.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 22 Dec 2010 17:47

Gaur wrote:However, in this case it is worth noting that absence of such rifle may be due to lack of trying. Note that no other Army in the world operates in such varied conditions.

So, I do not know if development of such a weapon is feasible or not. But I am certain that if it is feasible then such a weapon would prove to be very useful to IA.

Yes, they exist - ex Steyr AUG is designed to be modular for 5.56x45mm and 9x19mm. Here is where IA needs to learn from others' mistakes. Switching between different calibers makes a rifle a b!tch to zero. Australian special operations forces' armorers were the first to discover this with the AUGs. In the end they just said, forget this hassle - it is just much more cheaper and more practical for us to keep all the AUGs in 5.56x45mm and just buy a few more MP5s in 9x19mm. Most countries gave up on this idea then. Nowadays "multi-caliber" has come to mean a single system with a primary rifle (standard caliber or lower) and an automated low-power grenade or shot or fletechette launchers.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 22 Dec 2010 17:55

neerajb wrote:It would be much better if they could adapt existing INSAS for NATO 7.62X51 round (with heavier barrel for LMG) in addittion to 5.56X45 (both LMG & AR) with quick barrel change.

Yeah, it is called the Galil or the R4.

But seriously, there is no way in the world that you can simply replace the barrel and be done with it... at a minimum you will have to replace the receiver assembly... at which point of time, I could very well ask you: why not keep a few dozen FALs in the bttn armory for DMRs instead of going through all this circus?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 22 Dec 2010 17:57

Lol, I didn't realise this discussion would happen.

Guys to clarify.

1) IA is trying to get all possible weapons for RFI. A gun cannot have so much modularity.
2) They have not firmed up requirement and it will be based on what companies, including DRDO will have to offer.

The only criticism as a I see is that IA is trying to base its requirement on what is available and not what it wants. However, I will limit that criticism as even I too have limited knowledge. We are not expected to know if they already have a firmed up requirement. It could help negotiation as buyers will have to keep guessing.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 22 Dec 2010 18:13

If you guys will remember there was a similar RFP for something like 80,000(?) rifles/carbines a few years ago asking for quite a few jinchack features like laser range finder etc., and nothing materialized. This present RPF doesn't even mention the quantity required which makes one suspect that the IA is just looking around.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 22 Dec 2010 18:53

chackojoseph wrote:1) IA is trying to get all possible weapons for RFI. A gun cannot have so much modularity.
2) They have not firmed up requirement and it will be based on what companies, including DRDO will have to offer.

1. Technically it is possible for a modern automatic rifle to be modular enough for all those calibers - at any decent sized gun-show in the US you will find vendors and enthusiasts selling the basic M16/M4 in various non-standard calibers and configurations. It is just not practical or economic to do it for an army.

2. The next replacement of the INSAS will be based on what NATO (read: the US) decides as the definite successor to the current family of 5.56x45mm rifles. Right now the US is commited to it for at least next ten years, so INSAS (+ Tavors/Zittaras) shall live on for at least next 15-18 years. It is a political calculation, and imho the right one.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Dec 2010 20:25

The IA HQ has given a "request for information". A request for information is a request for information and not an intention to buy or make anything.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 22 Dec 2010 20:26

@rohitvats : My bad, I should have done that. It seems that IA is shooting in the dark indeed.

ParGha wrote:
neerajb wrote:It would be much better if they could adapt existing INSAS for NATO 7.62X51 round (with heavier barrel for LMG) in addittion to 5.56X45 (both LMG & AR) with quick barrel change.
Yeah, it is called the Galil or the R4.

But seriously, there is no way in the world that you can simply replace the barrel and be done with it... at a minimum you will have to replace the receiver assembly... at which point of time, I could very well ask you: why not keep a few dozen FALs in the bttn armory for DMRs instead of going through all this circus?

Exactly my point. INSAS family does that exactly (function wise and not caliber). But if IA can't do without multi caliber, why not use INSAS as the starting point!

Cheers....

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 22 Dec 2010 23:10

vic wrote:Colt is slowly releasing public info about multi caliber weapon CM 901. I think that DRDO is working on the same concept and that is what the army may be wanting in its RFP

DefenseReview.com Exclusive on the Colt Modular Carbine (CMC) CM901 Multi-Caliber Rifle

Now Colt has introduced their solution with the CM901 Colt Modular Carbine and DefenseReview.com was lucky enough to get an exclusive look at this new rifle.

“Modular” and “multi-caliber” are actually understatements, since the CM901 is, hands, down, the most versatile battle rifle/assault rifle we’ve ever seen in both respects. The heart of this versatility lies in the combination of the patent-pending AR (AR-10/AR-15)-format “universal” multi-caliber lower receiver and conversion system and Colt Defense’s various AR operating systems and uppers, which allows the end-user to configure the gun in so many mission-specific ways, it’s almost mind-boggling. The CM901 provides a truly sumptuous feast of versatility with regard to configuration options.

..........

2) The CM901 multi-caliber battle carbine can be configured in any/every caliber between 7.62×51mm NATO (7.62mm NATO)/.308 Win. and 5.56×45mm NATO (5.56mm NATO)/.223 Rem., including 6.8 SPC (6.8×43mm SPC) and 6.5 Grendel, depending on what U.S. military end-users require. To switch from 7.62mm to 5.56mm, just push out the two receiver pins, take the 7.62×51mm upper module off, slap the 5.56mm upper module on, push the two receiver pins back in, and you’re good to go.

3) The CM901 universal lower receiver will accept any/all legacy MILSPEC 5.56mm NATO AR rifle/carbine/SBR upper receivers already in the U.S. military inventory, including the, Colt M4/M4A1 Carbine 14.5″ AR carbine , M4 Commando 11.5″ AR SBR, MK18/CQBR (Close Quarters Battle Receiver) 10.3″ AR SBR, and M16A3/A4 20″ DGI rifle uppers. The CM901 lower will also accept the Colt LE6940 16″ monolithic upper and Colt LE6920 16″ M4/M4A1 Carbine-type uppers. Thus, 5.56mm barrel length is determined by whatever AR upper you want to use.

5) The CM901 sports fully ambidextrous controls a.k.a. “full ambi controls”, including ambidextrous safety/selector switch, bolt catch hold-open/release lever, and magazine release button.

................

Maybe someone in IA read this post and had a Eureka moment...... just saying...

Someone really needs to spank the decision making brass in IA, they seem to be Indiaphobic when it comes to procurements. First it was Arjun (too heavy), then Tank-Ex (we did not ask you to make it as we want to import tin cans) and now INSAS. Pump money into R&D and infrastructure and then throw it away as some cannot project their exact future needs soon enough.
I think IA should tell what all it needs with exact specifications (without making drastic spec changes till the Mk1 goes into production) atleast 10 years before they expect to induct the system.
IA also needs to understand that going from Mk1 to 2 to 3 is generally a much better choice than going from Mk1 to Mk1 of another product.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 22 Dec 2010 23:26

^^^Wow completely missed that one. Just add the AK round to above and horray you have IAs GSQR.

Cheers....

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 22 Dec 2010 23:42

Gaur wrote: A multi caliber weapon would be of great advantage to IA. We would not have to use two types of assault rifles. The current situation where we use INSAS for conventional warfare and AK-47 for COIN would not be required.

We have heard this quite often, and I always accepted the reasoning (reduced lethality of the 5.56 mm round). But then the question arises, what is the Para SF doing with the Tavors? Aren't they heavily involved in CI ops?

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 23 Dec 2010 00:13

nachiket wrote:
Gaur wrote:A multi caliber weapon would be of great advantage to IA. We would not have to use two types of assault rifles. The current situation where we use INSAS for conventional warfare and AK-47 for COIN would not be required.
We have heard this quite often, and I always accepted the reasoning (reduced lethality of the 5.56 mm round). But then the question arises, what is the Para SF doing with the Tavors? Aren't they heavily involved in CI ops?

There are two other, more compelling, reasons why AKMs are used in COIN OPs. One is that if your AKM gets damaged, no problem - just salvage the damaged part from a dead Tango's and everyone pretends nothing happened; if it happens with an INSAS outside active combat, a CoI will have to be initiated and if it rules against you the damage has to be paid from your already meager salary. Apparently this was not an issue for the Paras, as they used (and some use) Vz 58s even in the past. Another reason has to do with the TTPs used in your typical cordon and search operations, which is one of RR's most frequent operations. Again Paras are not used too often in these operations.

vic · Post by **vic** » 09 Jan 2011 19:29

OFB has brought out a sniper rifle. Seems like bolt action 7.62x51 but one cannot be sure.

From DFI forum

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5933/r762sniper.jpg

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5665/sr3006.jpg

Has a cheek rest, plastic body, new style bipod, solid scope mount. (But no picatinny rails?)

koti · Post by **koti** » 10 Jan 2011 12:38

^^That so much looks like the Mauser.

kaangeya · Post by **kaangeya** » 15 Jan 2011 04:00

One is that if your AKM gets damaged, no problem - just salvage the damaged part from a dead Tango's and everyone pretends nothing happened; if it happens with an INSAS outside active combat, a CoI will have to be initiated and if it rules against you the damage has to be paid from your already meager salary.

Massaland Ameerkhan TFTAs learned the same lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 1st real slog out deployment since Grenada

(OK I know, Vietnam). Just like the MBA "designed" "self cleaning" M16

It is always about reliable high piglets/minute capability, and rough and ready.

BTW what the heck is SDRE?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Jan 2011 04:08

kaangeya wrote:
BTW what the heck is SDRE?

SDRE

nash · Post by **nash** » 15 Jan 2011 09:02

Thanks for the dictionary... looks very amazing ..

kaangeya · Post by **kaangeya** » 15 Jan 2011 12:53

Funny SDRE includes Sri Lankans. Because as a nation it has the best socioeconomic indicators in the subcontinent and its denizens (male and female) are as a rule the beefiest, don't let Jaqueline Fernandes fool you, she's a Burgher. Most of their female movie stars are built on the lines of our chiseled West Coast beauties like Shilpa Shetty and often >175 cms

Of course we haven't gotten around to discussing other TTAs on our mainland like Manju Bhargavi and the many matrons from Tirunelveli!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Jan 2011 13:06

kaangeya,

as a trainee you need to report to the nukked thread for you initiation to the BRF language.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Feb 2011 23:55

ArmenT, Can you have a couple of pages on your blog on the evolution of the sword? You can cover the Western and Eastern swords. I am thinking of flow chart and links to the blocks on the flow chart.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 04 Mar 2011 18:28

guys just a random question...are there any facilities or whatever in india where simple civilians try their hand in shooting???

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 04 Mar 2011 18:44

the question is why the OG thinks it needs such a complicated weapon?
If an RFI has been put out then some senior people would have done some future perspective planning and thought we woulk like some thing like this.....
Interesting question from a logistics perspective though......

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 04 Mar 2011 19:16

manish.rastogi wrote:guys just a random question...are there any facilities or whatever in india where simple civilians try their hand in shooting???

You are a student, aren't you? Why not NCC? If you don't want to or can't do that, you always can try to find someone from IFG forum in your area and ask them politely for suggestions that can work for you.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 04 Mar 2011 19:52

yes i am a student....and what is IFG forum please??

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 04 Mar 2011 20:21

manish.rastogi wrote:yes i am a student....and what is IFG forum please??

IndiansForGuns; its a RKBA advocacy group mainly in India.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 04 Mar 2011 20:44

thank you...

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 06 Mar 2011 23:02

its 7.62 X 51.

But my dear dear countrymen, in our enthusiasm to focus on big platforms we sometimes overlook:

Beretta winning a huge contract to supply Mx4 carbines to India.

http://bi-me.com/main.php?id=51282&t=1& ... &mset=1021

was first announced during IDEX 2011 exhibition, along with information that India ordered 34 500 Beretta MX4 submachine guns for its Ministry of Home Affairs forces.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/it/submachine- ... mx4-e.html

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 09 Mar 2011 04:15

The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle

The changing nature of the war in Afghanistan led to the re-issue of the 7.62x51 mm NATO M14 rifle.

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 Mar 2011 17:21

I can't believe no one took it up....

There is a bigtime discussion going on in other forums about the ~35k units of Beretta Mx4 being ordered by BSF.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 11 Mar 2011 17:35

I can't believe no one took it up....

As in made a response to my post above?

Why don't you expand on your incredulity?

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 11 Mar 2011 19:04

koti wrote:I can't believe no one took it up... There is a bigtime discussion going on in other forums about the ~35k units of Beretta Mx4 being ordered by BSF.

What's there to say? Yes, it is a new, polymer-stocked, ambidexterous SMG. But at the end of the day it uses the same blowback design that the now-much-criticized Sterlings and Uzis do; it also uses the same 9x19mm rounds that they do (also criticised by the forces); and its common magazine with some Beretta pistols is pointless as India doesn't have those pistols in common issue. Logically India would have been better off accelerating the work on MSMC and getting it into production, while maintaining the existing Sterlings better. But mysterious are the ways of the GoI...

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 Mar 2011 19:11

@DRoy
^^Err...

Anyway, This development seems to be bad news for MINSAS, MSMC and Zittara

That said, the MX4 is one of the ugliest guns I have seen in recent times.

The cost of it around 45,000 per unit(ammo??).
I believe this is somewhat closer to the cost of Zittara.

Any enlightenment here please

koti · Post by **koti** » 11 Mar 2011 19:15

^^I would like to consider the H&K's attitude could have led to last minute hasty decisions in choosing Mx4 over MP5A3/4

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 11 Mar 2011 23:38

MSMC and Zittara, yes. But MINSAS was rejected by the Army, IIRC

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Mar 2011 00:03

I am totally in the dark about the various firearms, but why does BSF need the Beretta MX4? Why doesn't it standardize on a carbine using 5.56mm bullets, as it would be easier logistics-wise too? And which weapon does the Indian Army use in the same class as MX4?

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 12 Mar 2011 00:55

putnanja wrote:And which weapon does the Indian Army use in the same class as MX4?

License produced Sterling SMGs. Special Forces also have mini-Uzis, NSG has MP5s.

Sandeep_ghosh · Post by **Sandeep_ghosh** » 12 Mar 2011 05:59

Whats the Opinion on Magpul masada??

And the FN SCAR