Small Arms Thread

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Mar 2011 11:26

putnanja wrote: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?

Imported maal is better!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Mar 2011 12:52

Is there a reason why paramilitary do not standardise on a single weapon system like Tavor ,Insas variant , rather then operate multiple types.

for SF it would be understandable they would like to operate multiple type but for paramilitary they can standardise on one or two types.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 12 Mar 2011 14:18

Austin wrote:Is there a reason why paramilitary do not standardise on a single weapon system like Tavor ,Insas variant , rather then operate multiple types.

for SF it would be understandable they would like to operate multiple type but for paramilitary they can standardise on one or two types.

Funny thing is that SF seems to use more standardized weaponry than others (specially Paramilitary Forces). At least that is what the public pictures suggest.

MARCOS always seem to carry either AK-47 or mp5s depending upon the situation. Garuds always seems to be carrying Insas or AK-47s. Para seems to be happy with their VZ-58 and TAR-21s.

Of course, some other small arms can be seen in some pics (like UZI) but that seems to be very rare.

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Mar 2011 00:19

vic wrote:
putnanja wrote: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?
Imported maal is better!

Unfortunately vic ji that is often true.

My concern is that we already have the modren Tar versions in use. Zittara, a customized SMG cum Carbine would have been very flexible and far better choice here.

It is a tad costly. But even the Mx4 is around 45K mark. So, I was disappointed(puzzeled initially) by the selection.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Mar 2011 09:44

Is the cartridge for the Beretta MX4 at least made by OFB?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Mar 2011 10:16

Gaur wrote:Funny thing is that SF seems to use more standardized weaponry than others (specially Paramilitary Forces). At least that is what the public pictures suggest.

Yeah some how it beats me PMF will opt for another type of imported weapons , when there are options between AK series,Tavor,INSAS seris all manufactured or lic built in India.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 14 Mar 2011 11:37

Did the armed forces even test the Zittara

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 14 Mar 2011 12:05

ramana wrote: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.

Will do as a separate side project one of these days. Funny coincidence: I like collecting them and have a small personal collection

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 14 Mar 2011 12:20

vic wrote:
putnanja wrote: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?
Imported maal is better!

Actually in this case, the 5.56 x 45 mm. ammunition using INSAS carbine was a failure for various reasons and so ARDE had to develop a carbine that uses 5.56x30 mm. ammo instead. Which means there would have been a logistics problem regardless, since the rest of INSAS family uses 5.56x45 mm. ammo.

As for what the Mx4 replaces, it replaces the venerable H&K MP5 which is currently in use by the BSF and the Mx4 uses the same ammunition cartridges as the MP5. Beretta's Mx4 is reportedly more accurate and reliable than the H&K MP5. Not sure why zittara wasn't considered because OFB does make a version that uses the same 9x19 mm. cartridge as the MP5 and Mx4, per their website. Then again, it is entirely possible that the OFB product was considered as well. You'd have to ask the chaps in charge of selection for that information and why they rejected it, if they considered it at all.

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Mar 2011 13:28

As for what the Mx4 replaces, it replaces the venerable H&K MP5 which is currently in use by the BSF and the Mx4 uses the same ammunition cartridges as the MP5. Beretta's

Correction sir.

Mx4 is a replacement to the sterling SMG. BSF does not have MP5 in good number to be replaced.

Actually in this case, the 5.56 x 45 mm. ammunition using INSAS carbine was a failure for various reasons and so ARDE had to develop a carbine that uses 5.56x30 mm. ammo instead. Which means there would have been a logistics problem regardless, since the rest of INSAS family uses 5.56x45 mm. ammo.

It is not the round that failed. It is the carbine. The same round is used in countless carbines through the world.

Zittara fires 9x19mm and also 5.56NATO other then the 5.56x30mm. It would have been logistically perfect to opt for this weapon.
But again BSF might have had concerns fielding a Bullpup. And ironically again mx4 is not that far from a bull pup design.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Mar 2011 01:06

This link says the MX4 was custom designed for Indian Home Ministry from their CX4 model.

LINK

And per OFB page they make that cartridge. So case closed.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 15 Mar 2011 08:39

koti wrote:
As for what the Mx4 replaces, it replaces the venerable H&K MP5 which is currently in use by the BSF and the Mx4 uses the same ammunition cartridges as the MP5. Beretta's
Correction sir.

Mx4 is a replacement to the sterling SMG. BSF does not have MP5 in good number to be replaced.

According to this page they plan to replace MP5s..

koti wrote:
Actually in this case, the 5.56 x 45 mm. ammunition using INSAS carbine was a failure for various reasons and so ARDE had to develop a carbine that uses 5.56x30 mm. ammo instead. Which means there would have been a logistics problem regardless, since the rest of INSAS family uses 5.56x45 mm. ammo.
It is not the round that failed. It is the carbine. The same round is used in countless carbines through the world.

My sentence could have been worded better. I didn't mean to blame the round for the problem, just mentioning that the carbine uses a different round than the rest of the INSAS family. Incidentally, the round was not burning up all its propellant by the time the bullet left the carbine's barrel and that's what caused flash and severe recoil. That's why they had to go with a smaller round.

koti · Post by **koti** » 15 Mar 2011 12:28

Incidentally, the round was not burning up all its propellant by the time the bullet left the carbine's barrel and that's what caused flash and severe recoil. That's why they had to go with a smaller round

I've read about the reason too.

My point of concern is that the same round is in use in several other firearms like M4, SIG55x, Tars, etc.
So I do not see a good rationale in the argument posted by DRDO.

And a 9x19 is the next best thing to stone sling if we consider the BSF's deployments. Thick forests, vast desert stretches etc. Maybe the order will be for QCB requirements, but I am unsure as to whether 35K will be the requirement.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Mar 2011 20:04

ArmenT,

Did you note the complaints about barrel length for MX4? It means longer barrel to develop the full velocity from the cartridge? So INSAS carbine barrel length was the issue for it did not allow the cartridge to burn fully?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 16 Mar 2011 14:22

^^^
Yes sir, that is the exact cause of the issue. The propellant mixture of the cartridge is a low explosive, so it burns at a slower rate (if the cartridge used a high explosive (i.e. speed of burning > speed of sound), your rifle would be a hand-grenade) The key is to get it all burned before it exits the barrel, otherwise some of the unburned mixture will cause a fireball outside the barrel. But it can't burn too fast where the pressure generated exceeds the elastic properties of the steel barrel, otherwise the barrel will burst in the user's hands.

Few ways for this to work are (a) increase length of the barrel (b) change composition of the propellant (make it faster burning) (c) decrease amount of propellant or (d) fit an effective suppressor on the barrel.

In the case of MINSAS, they've gone for (b) and (c) and made a new MINSAS cartridge in 5.56x30 mm. whereas other manufacturers who have carbines that fire 5.56x45 mm. cartridges use method (d) and make (a) just as long as required. (I think M4 and SiG551 have barrels at least 30-35 mm. longer than the failed INSAS carbine design)

Also note that in general, longer barrel = more velocity, because the expanding gases have more time to act upon the bullet and accelerate it more. Once bullet exits the barrel, the expanding gases are no longer pushing it. So with a shorter carbine barrel, the exit velocity of the bullet is going to be smaller than if the same cartridge was fired by a rifle with (say) 450 mm. barrel. Funny thing about the 5.56x45 mm. NATO cartridges is that the bullet effectiveness falls rapidly once it falls below a certain velocity (2700 fps). See this article for more details.

koti · Post by **koti** » 16 Mar 2011 16:51

Does this imply that the DRDO chose to introduce new round despite the huge logistic challenges it poses just to avoid ~3cm barrel length?
If so, can anyone point out why this 3cm barrel length increase has been so critical?

IMO if the overall carbine length is the metric, it could have been better handled by M4 type adjustable stock then a new smaller round.

I do not think that DRDO was bound by the GSQR by the army(or enything) regarding barrel length.

koti · Post by **koti** » 16 Mar 2011 16:56

AK-74U has a smaller barrel. It fires the 5.56x39 though.
Atleast it uses common ammo as the ak-74.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Mar 2011 18:08

koti wrote:AK-74U has a smaller barrel. It fires the 5.56x39 though.
Atleast it uses common ammo as the ak-74.

Correction. Both weapons fire the Russian 5.45X39mm ammo.

koti · Post by **koti** » 17 Mar 2011 00:43

^^ Noted.
Apologies.

palash_kol · Post by **palash_kol** » 19 Mar 2011 14:05

Tiruchi ordnance factory develops new assault rifle
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 740063.cms

TIRUCHI: The Ordnance Factory of Tiruchi (OFT) has designed and developed an indigenous assault rifle matching the specifications of the AK47.

"When put into use by our armed forces and other security agencies, the rifle will be recognized as pride of India. It has been indigenously developed and has all the features of AK-47,'' said A K Prabhakar, OFT general manager, in an interaction with reporters on the sidelines of OFT Day celebrations. OFT, one among 41 such factories in the country, was established 45 years ago on the outskirts of the city.

To mark the contribution of the Tiruchi factory in developing the rifle, officials have decided to christen it "Trichy Assault Rifle,'' Prabhakar said. Field trials have been done for the 7.62mm caliber rifle with a range of 400 metres. "The rifle has been successfully tried by the Indian Army,'' Prabhakar said. It features a foldable butt and boasts of night vision device besides telescopic day vision system.

OFT has also developed a hand-held multi-shell launcher. The weapon of 38mm calibre with a range of 400 metres could fire six shells at a time. It could be used for firing grenades and tear gas shells.

Prabhakar said this was the first time that OFT was coming out with an "internal security weapon", or a riot control device in common parlance. "One batch of the device has been supplied to CRPF and many states have evinced interest in buying it for their police force,'' he said.

Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project (HAAP), another ordnance unit and the only one in the country to produce anti-tank projectiles, has also received overwhelming response for its indigenous anti-submarine rockets.

HAPP general manager B Pugazhendi said the Indian navy had placed bulk orders for the six-kilometre range anti-submarine rockets named RGB 60 developed by HAPP.

HAPP had dispatched 12 units of RGB 12, another version of the anti-submarine rockets, to the Navy last year. "With inhouse research and development efforts, HAPP has also developed 120mm caliber and 125mm calibre MK-II anti-tank projectiles,'' Pugazhendi said.

HAPP has chalked out a modernization plan for enhancing the production of MK-II projectiles. "Very soon, the blueprint for modernization will be submitted to the ordnance factory board that will in turn forward it to defence ministry for clearance,'' he said.

palash_kol · Post by **palash_kol** » 19 Mar 2011 16:55

sum · Post by **sum** » 19 Mar 2011 21:42

To mark the contribution of the Tiruchi factory in developing the rifle, officials have decided to christen it "Trichy Assault Rifle,'' Prabhakar said. Field trials have been done for the 7.62mm caliber rifle with a range of 400 metres. "The rifle has been successfully tried by the Indian Army,'' Prabhakar said. It features a foldable butt and boasts of night vision device besides telescopic day vision system.

Good stuff...looks neat too.

Any idea what the reaction of the IA was?

S_Prasad · Post by **S_Prasad** » 20 Mar 2011 01:51

sum wrote:
To mark the contribution of the Tiruchi factory in developing the rifle, officials have decided to christen it "Trichy Assault Rifle,'' Prabhakar said. Field trials have been done for the 7.62mm caliber rifle with a range of 400 metres. "The rifle has been successfully tried by the Indian Army,'' Prabhakar said. It features a foldable butt and boasts of night vision device besides telescopic day vision system.
Good stuff...looks neat too.

Any idea what the reaction of the IA was?

Is it designed for only 7.62 mm? Isn't 400 mts too short for 7.62 mm? I read that Khan saab was issuing 7.62mm in Afghanistan to overcome the short coming of M4 beyond 500 mts and is issuing 7.62 mm rifiles

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 20 Mar 2011 04:09

palash_kol wrote: TIRUCHI: The Ordnance Factory of Tiruchi (OFT) has designed and developed an indigenous assault rifle matching the specifications of the AK47.

"When put into use by our armed forces and other security agencies, the rifle will be recognized as pride of India. It has been indigenously developed and has all the features of AK-47,'' said A K Prabhakar, OFT general manager, in an interaction with reporters on the sidelines of OFT Day celebrations.

Wonder if that bit is DDM. For something that supposedly matches an AK-47, it sure looks more influenced by INSAS and an M4. Look at the shape of the sights and compare with shape of INSAS sights here. Interested readers might also want to look at my article on aperture sights, especially the last two pics that compare sights such as those used by INSAS, M16, AR-15, M4 etc. with sights used by AK. Also notice the forward grip with picatinny rails and compare with M4 here. Receiver also looks much more INSAS like (AK has a huge freakin safety/selector lever above the trigger, as can be seen here)

My guess is that this uses the basic INSAS mechanism rechambered to work with 7.62x39 mm. ammunition.

S_Prasad wrote:Is it designed for only 7.62 mm? Isn't 400 mts too short for 7.62 mm? I read that Khan saab was issuing 7.62mm in Afghanistan to overcome the short coming of M4 beyond 500 mts and is issuing 7.62 mm rifiles

Effective range of AK is also listed as 400 meters (though max. range is listed at 1000 meters and sights are calibrated to 1000 meters from AKM onwards. Of course, iron sights generally aren't effective beyond 400 meters anyway and most users really need a scope beyond this). 400 meters is also not short if this is a carbine (note that it has a folding stock, which is more commonly used in carbines).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Mar 2011 06:43

So ArmenT, this Trichy model is a INSAS firing a AK 47 round?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 20 Mar 2011 10:39

^^^^
Incidentally, this other report from two years ago quotes something slightly different:

TIRUCHI: Ordnance Factory, Tiruchi, will dispatch a few pieces of its new products, such as 30-mm automatic grenade launcher and 7.62-mm PKT machinegun in the coming months to the Army for field trials, OFT general manager Rajesh Kumar said on Wednesday.
...
...
Mr. Rajesh Kumar said the OFT was developing a new 7.62-mm assault rifle for use by the police in their anti-terrorist operations.

Though equivalent to AK-47, the 7.62-mm assault rifle was based on a different design.

Different general manager saying slightly different thing. Confusion onlee...

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Mar 2011 10:40

S_Prasad wrote:
sum wrote:quote]
To mark the contribution of the Tiruchi factory in developing the rifle, officials have decided to christen it "Trichy Assault Rifle,'' Prabhakar said. Field trials have been done for the 7.62mm caliber rifle with a range of 400 metres. "The rifle has been successfully tried by the Indian Army,'' Prabhakar said. It features a foldable butt and boasts of night vision device besides telescopic day vision system.
Good stuff...looks neat too.

Any idea what the reaction of the IA was?/quote]

Is it designed for only 7.62 mm? Isn't 400 mts too short for 7.62 mm? I read that Khan saab was issuing 7.62mm in Afghanistan to overcome the short coming of M4 beyond 500 mts and is issuing 7.62 mm rifiles

I think the problem which khan found with 7.62mm (M-14 rifle)round is that the recoil is so great that in continous or repeated firing it is not accurate. In single shot with space between firing of say 20 secs between each bullet fired it can then be used accrurately. Thats why the 5.56mm round was chosen for engaments in the 100-400m range.

I think they are talking about contious firing yet the rifle being accurate.

vic · Post by **vic** » 20 Mar 2011 10:45

I would say it is "improved" INSAS design firing 7.62x39 round. Though INSAS itself was based on AK-74, Galil etc. I good development IMHO. Though am sure Army will reject it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Mar 2011 20:25

Armen and vic, So the Trichy rifle could be for RR and counter insurgency use?
Note the mention of police forces by Rajesh Kumar.

In that case the IA might not accept it besides it never was to their requirements.

Wasnt there a project to make AK-47s which got nixed due to IP concerns from Russians.

So this via media can be a way out use INSAS action with the 7.62mm x39 round. The NATO/Ishapore round is too powerful for this role.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Mar 2011 20:32

Wasnt there a project to make AK-47s which got nixed due to IP concerns from Russians.

Not really. Loads of "Ak-7s" ( yes just seven not f*rty seven, that's what the OFB calls it) are in service with the paramilitary.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Mar 2011 20:47

Yes but they are not made in the OFB factories.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 20 Mar 2011 21:13

http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/21.htm

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 20 Mar 2011 21:32

Look similar to this one

MGI AK47 Hydra Modular Rifle System by Laura Burgess PR, on Flickr

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 20 Mar 2011 22:25

D Roy wrote:http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/21.htm

Yes, that is the A7 which is the AKM clone made by OFB. It was reported later that they stopped manufacturing these because Russians protested that it was violating their IP rights. IIRC, it was displayed in DEFEXPO 2004 and Mikhail Kalashnikov dropped by as a special guest and got royally p*ssed off on seeing the clone.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 21 Mar 2011 00:00

Better Picture of the TAR

A Picture of the SIG 551 7.62M43

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 21 Mar 2011 02:57

Guys,
I am bound to get a lot of flak for this, but I really hope that the next standard assault rifle of IA would be imported. This is because no matter how good a Rifle DRDO designs (or OFB claims to have designed), OFB is bound to mess it up during production with their piss poor quality control. Heck, they cannot even clone an AK-47 properly (they had tried with A-7, as some posters have already pointed out). Even Pakistani produced AK-47s are of much quality. And I would not even go into the quality issues of 9mm small arms (both pistols and sterling) and 84mm RCL.
I am all for indigenous weaponry, but you should not mess with something as critical and basic as an assault rifle. Not producing one would not have much (if at all) adverse effect on our arms industry. The only problem would be the little lowering of jingo's self esteem. That's a big cost to pay, but a soldier's confidence in his rifle is even more important.

The ideal solution would have been to get OFB's act together, but we all know the possibility of that happening.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Mar 2011 03:00

even if it is imported it will be license produced by OFB, so selecting foreign gun doesn't solve anything.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 21 Mar 2011 03:46

^^
If so, then I agree that a DRDO (and still not OFB ) design would be the best way to go. But look at the huge number of AK-47s that are present in forward areas (not to mention with Paramilitary personnel in the cities). They are not OFB produced.

The problem with OFB is that it is not just giving a bad name to itself. As incredulous as it may seem, it ends up fuelling the already inherent bias against all indegenous weaponry inside the Army. For instance, I recently met a very young officer in a train. He was criticising DRDO for giving sub par arms to Army. When asked for an example, he cited INSAS. Says that there are still issues with INSAS including problems with selector switch and magazine. When I pointed out that these issues were not design issues but production issues (and hence not DRDO's fault), his answer was "That's what DRDO would say, wouldn't they?".

My point is that Army's mindset is already against indigenous products. Then the young and impressionable come out of training academies and find that:
- the indigenous grenades that they throw are duds.
- the indigenous 9mm pistol and sterling are more likely to kill him than the enemy.
- The 84mm RCL's rocket does not come out when fired (and may at anytime blow him to bits).

I mean that these are the first things he fires, and thus this is the first impression of indegenous products he is left with. The young person does not research whether it was DRDO's fault or OFB's fault, he is left with the impression that indigenous weapons are junk. Then when the DGMF tells him that Arjun is junk, he is all too ready to accept it (sorry for the potshot..could not resist it

). When the Officer becomes senior and has to decide the fate of an indigenous system, what do you think his attitude towards the indigenous equipment will be?

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 21 Mar 2011 04:09

So the solution to not being able to produce a high tech item like an assault rifle is to import? How about $hitcanning the OFB? This would be laughable if the issue was not so serious.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 21 Mar 2011 07:15

ArmenT wrote:^^^
Yes sir, that is the exact cause of the issue. The propellant mixture of the cartridge is a low explosive, so it burns at a slower rate (if the cartridge used a high explosive (i.e. speed of burning > speed of sound), your rifle would be a hand-grenade) The key is to get it all burned before it exits the barrel, otherwise some of the unburned mixture will cause a fireball outside the barrel. But it can't burn too fast where the pressure generated exceeds the elastic properties of the steel barrel, otherwise the barrel will burst in the user's hands.

Few ways for this to work are (a) increase length of the barrel (b) change composition of the propellant (make it faster burning) (c) decrease amount of propellant or (d) fit an effective suppressor on the barrel.

In the case of MINSAS, they've gone for (b) and (c) and made a new MINSAS cartridge in 5.56x30 mm. whereas other manufacturers who have carbines that fire 5.56x45 mm. cartridges use method (d) and make (a) just as long as required. (I think M4 and SiG551 have barrels at least 30-35 mm. longer than the failed INSAS carbine design)

Also note that in general, longer barrel = more velocity, because the expanding gases have more time to act upon the bullet and accelerate it more. Once bullet exits the barrel, the expanding gases are no longer pushing it. So with a shorter carbine barrel, the exit velocity of the bullet is going to be smaller than if the same cartridge was fired by a rifle with (say) 450 mm. barrel. Funny thing about the 5.56x45 mm. NATO cartridges is that the bullet effectiveness falls rapidly once it falls below a certain velocity (2700 fps). See this article for more details.

One more thing I forgot to mention is that even though INSAS uses 5.56x45 mm. rounds, they are not NATO SS109 standard rounds. Instead, the INSAS rounds are manufactured by OFB and, if I remember correctly, have a different propellant composition than SS109 standard and therefore have a different burn rate and burn profile of the propellant.

Of course, they could change the propellant mixture to be faster burning, but then they would have to go through the entire test cycle and recertify the new cartridges as safe for use with INSAS rifle and LMG as well, which are already deployed by the thousands by this time and cannot be easily altered if needed. Then there is the hassle to also make sure that old cartridges are marked specifically not to be used by carbine version + the hassle of changing the factory setup to manufacture the new cartridges etc.

These could be some of the factors that influenced DRDO to come up with a different cartridge for the carbine.