Small Arms Thread

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 930
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 03 Dec 2011 22:28

FWIW, the newer Bulgarian AKMs (you can identify them by their black polymer furniture) are apparently falling apart after high-hundreds/low-thousands rounds fired; the much older East German, Polish and Romanian ones (usually with hardened plywood furniture) are doing just fine even after 5000+ rounds fired.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 930
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 03 Dec 2011 22:33

khukri wrote:
Victor wrote:This is what it sounds like:
Image

Is this an actual weapon or somebody's rendering of a wet dream?

Whatever it is, it looks much better than the now-canceled OICW XM-29 (XM-29, Daewoo K-11, FN-2000... :shakes-head-in-disbelief:)

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Victor » 03 Dec 2011 22:57

That's what all infantry bandooks may look like in just a few years. The removable UBGL will be a must-have to transform each platoon into walking artillery. Another guy with sniper credentials will have a scope and different barrel. Just a small hop from this:
Image

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Katare » 04 Dec 2011 02:40

guys posting picturesn should also give a clue what they are posting or provide source.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gurneesh » 04 Dec 2011 03:06

Surely when it comes to looks, INSAS is meh (specially with the orange-brown furniture). But the question is whether it does what it was designed to do i.e. be a as good a rifle as say M16A3 or the Tavor pictured above. As long as INSAS gets the basics of being a good rifle (mechanic stuff like barrel, firing mech etc.) correct, then it will only need some superficial redesign to give it contemporary expansion capabilities (mounts, rails etc).

In short just because Tavor and M16A- look much better that INSAS, it doesnot mean that they are better rifles.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby manum » 04 Dec 2011 03:21

Gurneesh wrote:In short just because Tavor and M16A- look much better that INSAS, it doesnot mean that they are better rifles.


you don't really mean it...isn't it, I mean if things upgrade so does the some obsolete things around it called looks...
some times...but I think these new guns are also about ergonomics and objectives sought to be achieved...so they are not like barrel trigger and magazine and supporting mechanism...

everything is thought out together...not that simple, sometime truth lies skin deep...

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby srai » 04 Dec 2011 03:50

Karan M wrote:Whenever I see somebody with an INSAS, I usually - time and circumstances permitting- ask them about the rifle and what they think of it. This way, I have spoken to CRPF, regular police, Army, and others who use the rifle. The general perception is:

Pros
1. Good rifle; nothing earth shattering but it works, and is decently functional.
2. Reliable: Maintain it well, and it will not disappoint
3. Accurate; a zeroed rifle will demonstrate consistent results
4. Most problems that have came up over the years were resolved
5. Lightweight; one guy told me that the SLR gave him back pain
6. Some liked the SLR style handle, other's didnt care
7.Allows for more rounds than SLR, and has burst function too.

Cons
1. Magazine, magazine, magazine. The average jawan dislikes the plastic magazine because he cannot handle the rifle as roughly as he would have a weapon with an all metal one. The translucent mag does tell you how many rounds are inside, but the soldiers like something that is well, just unbreakable
2. 5.56 mm; this is an issue only brought up by some soldiers, not even all. Some guys preferred AK-47s because of higher rate of fire AND the heavier kill power of the 7.62 mm round. What was interesting was not all said this. The 5.56 mm round, depending on where it hits, can be brutally damaging as well.
3.Minor gripes about the sling, about fit and finish etc. The first is a serious point, some guys had issue with the current sling system. Others who disliked the fit and finish were real gun afficianados, who compared it to the best quality "Foreign maal" and disliked the "Tacky furniture" etc.
4.Significant gripes about OFB manufacturing. Basically, to this day, INSAS is hand assembled by experienced workers at OFB. Many times, for some batches, the unit armourers receive the OFB supplied rifles and then further "work" on them, to ease up the action, or make minor modifications to make the rifle ready. The fit and finish of some INSAS batches was bad, though as a general perception, it has improved later on.

All said and done, the INSAS is a relatively inexpensive, but perfectly functional rifle. Where it has been let down to some extent (because not all OFB can be painted with the same brush, some have invested considerable effort into improving the product) is OFB's somewhat lackadaisical QA which comes up in the effort required to "finesse" the rifles by unit armorers. The Army now wants to import the "next rifle", point is that rifle too, will be made by the same OFBs. All this will do, to my mind, is result in the usual cycle of dependence on external suppliers for even iterative basic product improvements.

No weapon off the shelf will meet IA requirements to be honest. It will take several years of effort before it meets basic standards. The SteyrAUG was used by the Australians for many years, but only when they deployed to East Timor did many problems become apparent. The SA-80, became infamous and problems persisted till H&K redesigned the rifle to incorporate modern technology.

Point is with some forward thinking, the INSAS could become a perfectly capable rifle, across the board. Just ditching it, and running for the "Easy option" which will be anything but easy, is to my mind, a T-90 case all over again. The Army is yet to get to grips with making decisions that keep india's industrial capabilities in mind. They choose equipment, assume things will work out, and are somewhat shortshighted.

If a rifle is indeed chosen, then I hope it is one from H&K because political issues aside, this is the manufacturer who has consistently demonstrated high standards of reliability and quality. Its a different thing that getting the average OFB worker into the same "mindset" will be a significant challenge, and will require huge investments in making quality ammunition as well.

The money that could be saved on INSAS replacement could be used for buying sights, radios, body armor etc. But IA decisions are what they are.


Great post (like always :) )!

IMO, it is surprising that the IA would just abandon INSAS (<15 years in service) for something else. Instead of working with the DRDO, OFB, and unit armorers to better the standards and improve the rifle further (INSAS mk.2/3/4/5 or JV), they are going back to imports. Not only will this mean a continued dependence on foreign products, but it also means killing a hard achieved indigenous industrial capability. License production is not the same thing as designing and building your own. The IA forgets that the AK-series, M-16-series, etc, took more than 40-50 years (or longer) of continuous improvements to reach the levels these are today.

Speaking about costs, the IA has a lot of areas it needs to modernize and fully equip its formations. However, it is spending its $2 billion (or more) budget on this replacement instead of on many other priorities.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 06 Dec 2011 23:13

ArmenT et al, I was watching Hisotry Channel show on Super Power access. They had a US Army Marksman unit take a plain vanilla M-16 and rebarelled it in their own machine shop with a heavy chrome moly steel barrel. The accuarcy was amazing. ~2" groups vs 8-10" groups with factory model. The guy was saying a heavy barrel is need for stability.

Can they do this with the INSAS?

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 930
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 07 Dec 2011 00:05

ramana, no need -- there is already an INSAS LMG with a longer and heavier barrel, which can be used in that role while in semi-auto (single shot) mode.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 07 Dec 2011 00:12

Oh!

Leo.Davidson
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 Aug 2011 05:34
Location: Boston, USA

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Leo.Davidson » 07 Dec 2011 05:02

srai wrote:Great post (like always :) )!

IMO, it is surprising that the IA would just abandon INSAS (<15 years in service) for something else. Instead of working with the DRDO, OFB, and unit armorers to better the standards and improve the rifle further (INSAS mk.2/3/4/5 or JV), they are going back to imports. Not only will this mean a continued dependence on foreign products, but it also means killing a hard achieved indigenous industrial capability. License production is not the same thing as designing and building your own. The IA forgets that the AK-series, M-16-series, etc, took more than 40-50 years (or longer) of continuous improvements to reach the levels these are today.

Speaking about costs, the IA has a lot of areas it needs to modernize and fully equip its formations. However, it is spending its $2 billion (or more) budget on this replacement instead of on many other priorities.


I do not believe that the Army is at fault, they are the Buyer. It is DRDO/OFB responsibility as the Seller to keep the gun upto date and in demand.

Let me reiterate the Ambassador car example, that nobody seems to get. This car was manufactured in India since the 1950's. For the next fifty years, not much changed; engine output increased < 10%; interior, exterior remained unchanged, you can imagine the rest. Most of you guys, keep harping that it's an antique and what not. But what it represents is STAGNANT technology. The people (like you'll) are happy with antiquity, the manufacturer pocketed all the profits without spending a dime on R&D and the Auto industry in India remains BACKWARD.

That's my problem with the INSAS and DRDO/OFB in general. And the INSAS is doomed to antiquity. They may have fixed the bugs in the gun, but they need to take it to the next level.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Surya » 07 Dec 2011 07:20

We're making Ordnance factories future ready, says OFB Chairman Dimri

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/tod ... 494614.ece

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sagar G » 07 Dec 2011 09:56

Leo.Davidson wrote:I do not believe that the Army is at fault, they are the Buyer. It is DRDO/OFB responsibility as the Seller to keep the gun upto date and in demand.


The buyer seller relationship you paint here looks like the one between a customer and a kirana store, the customer moves on to another kirana store because the kirana store he used to visit isn't keeping up to date items in it's stock which is completely wrong way to see the situation here. The important thing here is the patience and will required to create a mil-industrial complex which either the IA doesn't have or they are simply not interested in doing so. Going for exports on the drop of a hat is not going to solve our R&D problems or improve our manufacturing capabilities, only sustained sincere efforts are going to solve them. I'am not privy to any information where IA has shown a sincere effort to support our indigenous small arms industry or whether they have given DRDO/OFB a mandate to develop a new assault rifle. Blaming DRDO for the so called "failure" of INSAS is simply childish according to me when they don't even have the required support from the user.


Leo.Davidson wrote:That's my problem with the INSAS and DRDO/OFB in general. And the INSAS is doomed to antiquity. They may have fixed the bugs in the gun, but they need to take it to the next level.


DRDO can only take the gun to the next level when they have the necessary support from the user and proper funding from GOI, you are imagining that DRDO is an autonomous body which can take decisions on it's own and there is zero red tapism involved here.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 07 Dec 2011 12:47

ramana wrote:ArmenT et al, I was watching Hisotry Channel show on Super Power access. They had a US Army Marksman unit take a plain vanilla M-16 and rebarelled it in their own machine shop with a heavy chrome moly steel barrel. The accuarcy was amazing. ~2" groups vs 8-10" groups with factory model. The guy was saying a heavy barrel is need for stability.

Can they do this with the INSAS?

ParGha wrote:ramana, no need -- there is already an INSAS LMG with a longer and heavier barrel, which can be used in that role while in semi-auto (single shot) mode.

Any mass-produced weapon can generally be improved by custom hand-fitting. There are quite a few small shops here in the US, that take rifles and pistols made by well-known manufacturers and then add or remove material by plating/lapping/cutting/grinding, so that the fit of the action, chamber and barrel are down to much finer tolerances than what the original manufacturer could do (due to original manufacturer using mass-production techniques). As can be imagined, such operations are unique to each individual weapon and there is a lot of time and manual labor involved and hence, the costs of refinishing just one or two parts can easily be double or triple that of the original entire firearm! That's why the US military only does this for weapons intended for use by their snipers, special forces etc.

Changing the barrel to a heavier one is just one of the factors to improve accuracy. Other improvements are to properly bed the action and also free-float the barrel. Making a adjustable stock or customized stock tailored to suit the user's unique body shape and also adjusting trigger pull force to the user's preferences also help quite a bit.

Some manufacturers offer custom high-end manufacturing (such as Holland & Holland, Boss & Co., Wilson Combat, Greener, Purdey etc.), including some mass-manufacturers who have separate high-end divisions (e.g. Smith & Wesson Performance Center). These guys make each firearm's fit to extremely high tolerances and even go so far as to measure the customer and adjust the stock dimensions and trigger pull force to their preferences. Naturally, these products cost a heck of a lot, since it involves a lot of manual labor to get such high tolerances and custom fit.

<Disclaimer>The pages I linked above are from my blog and discuss the processes involved in much more detail and why they are beneficial to accuracy.</Disclaimer>

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 16 Dec 2011 23:24

Some new ammo displayed recently from Russian side , to who ever it makes sense

http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/15/11/39/27/dsc11411.jpg

jimmy_moh
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 14 May 2009 12:33
Location: LOC

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby jimmy_moh » 17 Dec 2011 12:41

i do have one doubt here.....
from my understanding.. army is going to replace INSAS may be in 5-8 yrs..... and army trrying to get the foreign wepon instead of the all the futuristic design of DRDO
ok fine.. its their choice ....
but since we already having locally producing Tavor.. and it is widely using among our SF and RR.... why again we need to evaluate other brands....
we can simply select Tavor for replacing INSAS right..., that will save the timeframe right...

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby koti » 20 Dec 2011 16:19

^^ Nope. Unless IA changes its Assault doctrine a Bullpup Rifle can not replace a regular rifle.

That apart, Tavor (Tar 21) is not being manufactured in India(?). It is only Zittara which is a Carbine that India has license to manufacture.

And that too IMO is a bit expensive then MP5 or the likes.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Surya » 20 Dec 2011 21:50

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=17019


DNA article on the new rifle tender. Some voices are questioning this ??

wish they had questioned more orders for T 90 at the very start.

lets see what happens here

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 468
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby alexis » 21 Dec 2011 09:29

Surya wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=17019


DNA article on the new rifle tender. Some voices are questioning this ??

wish they had questioned more orders for T 90 at the very start.

lets see what happens here


Carrying two barrels seems to be a bad choice logistics wise. To carry, store and transport two sets of ammos seems to be a waste of resources to my civilian and untrained mind.

mikehurst
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 May 2011 17:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby mikehurst » 21 Dec 2011 11:22

koti wrote:^^ Nope. Unless IA changes its Assault doctrine a Bullpup Rifle can not replace a regular rifle.

That apart, Tavor (Tar 21) is not being manufactured in India(?). It is only Zittara which is a Carbine that India has license to manufacture.

And that too IMO is a bit expensive then MP5 or the likes.


Koti sir, could you please explain why adopting a Bull-Pup design would require a doctrine change for the IA. As far as my wiki knowledge goes a Bull-Pup design is supposed to “permit a shorter firearm length for the same barrel length for improved manoeuvrability, and reduces weight...” [wiki quote].

- Mike.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Singha » 21 Dec 2011 11:25

maybe with left handed people the expelled shell casings hit the face?

mikehurst
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 May 2011 17:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby mikehurst » 21 Dec 2011 11:42

Singha wrote:maybe with left handed people the expelled shell casings hit the face?


Singhaji, that would not be a doctrine issue; at best it is a weapon design issue. Further as per trusty [sic] Wikipedia it is suggested that 10% of the world population is left-handed. Assuming a fair distribution of left and right handed people within the IA, this is not a matter for overall concern. Also if my knowledge serves me right, Bull-Pup design is supposed to be ambidextrous. To my limited knowledge, a doctrine issue would involve, the size of the basic troop-platoon, roles assigned to individual soldiers, and the objective(s) mix that a troop is supposed to achieve-face.

[correction 1: my bad, some Bull-Pup designs are ambidextrous and some are not; still only a design issue.]

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 21 Dec 2011 12:03

alexis wrote:
Surya wrote:Carrying two barrels seems to be a bad choice logistics wise. To carry, store and transport two sets of ammos seems to be a waste of resources to my civilian and untrained mind.


I think keeping future in mind and how soldier battle protection gear would evolve , it would be good to standardise on 7.62 x 39mm weapon and many BP gear provides decent protection against 5.56 class weapon and we might find wide use of such gear in the future. 7.62 will certainly carry more punch and longer effective range.

May be some gurus can enlighten on pluses and minus of 5.56 and 7.62 caliber keeping future requirenment in mind ?

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby koti » 21 Dec 2011 12:21

Singha wrote:maybe with left handed people the expelled shell casings hit the face?

Singha saab, It is an issue, However modern Bull pups like Tar can eject their shells from both sides. F2000(Used by SPG) can eject them from the front portion of the rifle(patented tech).

mikehurst wrote:Koti sir, could you please explain why adopting a Bull-Pup design would require a doctrine change for the IA. As far as my wiki knowledge goes a Bull-Pup design is supposed to “permit a shorter firearm length for the same barrel length for improved manoeuvrability, and reduces weight...” [wiki quote].
- Mike.


IA soldiers are trained to use the bayonet charge. Insas and FN-1A1 are suitable foe this.
Imagine a soldier charging with a Bayonet using a TAR or Steyr Aug(Funny isn't it).
Secondly, the soldiers profile increases when in Prone position.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby koti » 21 Dec 2011 12:29

Austin wrote:
I think keeping future in mind and how soldier battle protection gear would evolve , it would be good to standardise on 7.62 x 39mm weapon and many BP gear provides decent protection against 5.56 class weapon and we might find wide use of such gear in the future. 7.62 will certainly carry more punch and longer effective range.

May be some gurus can enlighten on pluses and minus of 5.56 and 7.62 caliber keeping future requirenment in mind ?


Saab, it is less then obvious that 7.62 has a better kill then the 5.56

However, which scenario would you prefer; sending a battalion with each soldier having 400 5.56 rounds or 200 7.62 rounds?
Point to Remember: Our Logistics in Aksi chin and Arunachal are not in the same class as USMC logistics in Afg or Iraq.

Unless Pak of Chinese have any wide spread adoption of body amor that is more resistant to 5.56 then 7.62, 5.56 is the better way to for us. However, this is not the case with our RR deployed for CI. 7.62 caliber weapons like the AkM is the way to go there.
Edit: Grammar
Last edited by koti on 21 Dec 2011 12:39, edited 2 times in total.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby koti » 21 Dec 2011 12:38

Surya wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=17019


DNA article on the new rifle tender. Some voices are questioning this ??

wish they had questioned more orders for T 90 at the very start.

lets see what happens here


DNA has a decent record of Defense reporting.
But their claim of the weapon to be of 10 Kgs is ridiculous. Even if the Rifle weighs 4 Kgs the additional barrel will put the total weight of the package around 5 Kgs. Thats a 100% exaggeration here. Also, every soldier need not carry two barrels.

Not that I see the requirement for such a complex rifle for IA, it obviously knows its requirements better.
Added to that OFB already manufactures a rifle with interchangeable barrels: The Zittara.

The report is a blatant comment about the requirement the IA has envisaged and nothing more.

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby VinayG » 21 Dec 2011 12:49

Austin sir sorry for long article posted some imp paras hope it helps

7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm

The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56 x 45mm NATO cartidge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and power of the SS109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range documented in actual battle (ORO studies): (2) the lower recoil generated by the 5.56mm cartridge allows more control during full automatic fire and therefore provides greater firepower to the individual soldier; (3) the lesser weight of the 5.56m ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition and other equipment; (4) the smaller size of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the use of smaller, lighter, and more compact rifles and squad automatic weapons and; (5) the lethality of the 5.56mm projectile is greater than the 7.62mm projectile at normal combat ranges, due to the tendency of the lighter projectile to tumble or shatter on impact. In summary, the 5.56mm NATO provides greater firepower and effectiveness than the larger and heavier 7.62mm NATO. This concept of more for less appears very convincing, however upon careful analysis, this idea loses its credibility. Let's examine each of the advantages of the 5.56mmNATO, compare them to the qualities of the larger 7.62mm NATO, and discuss some critical factors not addressed by proponents of the smaller cartridge.
The penetration results obtained by the NSMATCC with the 5.56mm SS109 cartridge are impressive. The SS109 can penetrate the 3.45mm standard NATO steel plate to 640 meters, while the 7.62mm ball can only penetrate it to 620 meters. The U. S. steel helmet penetration results are even more impressive as the SS109 can penetrate it up to 1,300 meters, while the 7.62mm ball cannot penetrate it beyond 800 meters. These comparisons however, do not consider the fact that the SS109 uses a semi-armor piercing, steel-cored projectile, while the 7.62mm ball uses a relatively soft anti-personnel, lead-cored projectile. A semi-armor piercing 7.62mm caliber projectile, using second generation technology as the SS109, would easily out-perform the smaller SS109 projectile in penetration tests at all ranges.22 With respect to barrier and fortification penetration tests, the7.62mm ball projectile can consistently penetrate two test building blocks, while the SS109 semi-armor piercing projectile cannot penetrate a single block. In light of these considerations, the idea of SS109 penetration superiority over the 7.62 x 51mm is not valid.
The concept that greater firepower can be achieved by provi- ding as much infantrymen with a full automatic fire capability is not realistic. Battle experience has shown that full automatic fire from light assault rifles is largely ineffective and only resutls in the expenditure of large quantities of ammunition. Even with the lower recoil generated by 5.56mm ammunition, auto-matic fire dispersion is still too large to be effective.23 Fire power is normally equated with maximum "steel" on target, not with maximum steel in the general direction of the target. Full automatic fire with the 5.56mm NATO just as wasteful and Confirming this view is the fact that second generation assault rifles, such as the U. S. M16A2 and Belgian FN FNC, are not employing a 3-shot burst control in lieu of a full automatic capability.24 With this burst control feature, a thirty round magazine produces only ten bursts. Do we need thirty rounds to successfully hit and incapacitate ten enemy targets? Even with 3-shot burst control and the lower impulse of the 5.56mm ammunition, shot dispersion is still too large to be effective. Perhaps a single well-aimed 147 grain 7.62mm bullet would have more effect than three rounds of 5.56mm fired in the burst control mode. As a result, the lower recoil and impulse of the 5.56mm ammuntion does not provide greater fire power since full automatic fire from an individual assault rifle is largely ineffective and only wastes ammunition.

A great deal of emphasis has been placed, during the development of intermediate power ammunition, on ammunition weight. It is a fact that 5.56-mm NATO ammunition weight only 47% as much as 7.62 mm NATO ammunition. This weight reduction advantage however, comes with a corresponding disadvantage in the power and effectiveness of the ammuntion. The 5.56mm NATO cartridge was originally derived from commercial small game and varmint cartridges used by hunters throughout the United States. Soldiers can definitely carry more 5.56mm ammunition, but will they be carrying more effective ammunition? As a case in point, battle experience in the Philippines, between government troops (armed with the 5.56mm M16A1) and Communist rebels (armed with vintage .30 Caliber M1 Garand and Browning automatic rifles), has shown that the greater penetration capability of the older full power cartridge gave the rebels superior effective firepower.26

Another stated advantage of the smaller 5.56mm NATO cartridge concerns the employment of shorter and lighter weapons. Current versions of the Israeli Galil and FN FAL Paratroop rifles, however, both in 7.62mm caliber, weigh only nine to ten pounds fully loaded with twenty-round magazines. These 7.62mm NATO weapons also have shorter barrels and folding stocks that make them very compact. The new U. S. M16A2 and the new Belgian FN FNC, both second generation 5.56mm NATO assault rifles, weigh approximately eight27 and ten pounds,28 respectively, when fully loaded with thirty-round magazines. The purported reductions in weight and improvements in compactness are really not significant. The lethality of the original M193 5.56mm projectile is awesome, at ranges under 200 meters, due to the tendency of the marginally stable 55-grain bullet to tumble or shatter on impact with any target. Lethality of the M193 5.56mm projectile beyond 200 meters, however, falls very sharply as range increases and velocity decreases.29 The lethality of the new SS109 5.56mm projectile on the battlefield is questionable. The SS109 projectile is longer and heavier than the M193 projectile and is more stabilized in flight with the faster rifling twist used in second generation assault rifles. The emphasis, in the development of the SS109 projectile, was to increase stability and therefore penetration at longer ranges. The increased flight stability of the new SS109 projectile does effectively enhance penetration at longer ranges, but this same stability reduces the projectile's tendency to tumble or shatter upon target impact.30 As a result, the emphasis on penetration in the new SS109 projectile may result in a sharp decrease in lethality, as compared to its predecessor M193 cartridge

As the soldier's ability to engage targets beyond the 300 to 400 meter NATO limitation increases, the long range accuracy limitations of the 5.56mm SS109 projectile will become evident. The 62-grain 5.56mm NATO projectile is significantly more affected by weather conditions than the heavier projectile of the 7.62mm NATO. For example, at 400 meters the required windage adjustment for a 10 mph crosswind for the SS109 cartridge is approximately 9 clicks into the wind using the M16A2 sights. Under the same conditions, the required windage adjustment for the 7.62mm NATO cartridge is only 4 clicks using the M14 sights. The larger sight adjustment, required for the SS109 projectile, produces a greater margin of error that increases as distance increases. As the potential rifle engagement distances increase, due to improvements in optical sights, the limited accuracy potential of the small 5.56mm NATO projectile will severely limit any benefits that may be derived from such optical improvements. SS109 projectile may result in a sharp decrease in lethality, as compared to its predecessor M193 cartridge.
It has also been maintained, by intermediate caliber propo-nents, that the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge has proven itself in battle since its adoption by the U. S. in 1963. In most of these conflicts, however, the 5.56mm weapons were employed against opponents armed with Soviet weapons also using intermediate power ammunition. When the 5.56mm weapon comes up against an opponent armed with weapons using full-power ammunition, such as in the Philippine example cited previously, the 5.56mm armed soldier finds himself at a severe disadvantage.

The "obvious" advantages of the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO are not obvious at all. The SS109 is a definite improvement over the first generation M193 cartridge however, at best it will serve only as an interim standard. As technological improvements in optical sights extend the practical engagement distances for rifle fire, and as improvements in body armor require greater and greater power from the rifle cartridge, the SS109 and other 5.56mm caliber ammunition will have to give way to improve and more powerful ammunition, such as the 7.62mm NATO. The 7.62 x 51mm NATO has not been improved or modified since its adoption by NATO in 1953. This larger cartridge has a greater capacity for growth and technological improvement and should be developed to its potential now. The large size of the 147-grain 7.62 mm projectile is more than sufficient to incorporate significant improvements in lethality and penetration. We must capitalize on the Soviet trend toward their 5.45mm caliber weapons by improving our full power 7.62mm NATO ammunition and designing better and more efficient weapons to use it. We have a chance to totally outclass Soviet small arms in the area of individual and squad weapons. Let's do it by upgrading the existing 7.62 mm NATO to its full potential.


nash
BRFite
Posts: 885
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nash » 21 Dec 2011 13:25

Using two barrel in one Gun , I can see some advantage in scenario where our troops facing an enemy using one of these cartridge, say 7.62, and if we won that battle or even during the crucial moments of battle where our soldier ran out of both the ammunition then he can use the enemy ammunition, which can play a decisive moment in a battle.

mikehurst
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 May 2011 17:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby mikehurst » 21 Dec 2011 13:29

nash wrote:Using two barrel in one Gun , I can see some advantage in scenario where our troops facing an enemy using one of these cartridge, say 7.62, and if we won that battle or even during the crucial moments of battle where our soldier ran out of both the ammunition then he can use the enemy ammunition, which can play a decisive moment in a battle.


Well if we are talking about a full scale war; if in such a war we are reduced to scavenging enemy equipment to continue fighting, then i guess we have larger headaches, than compatible ammunition. Ability to use enemy ammo is a capability of use for special forces, or pathfinder type formations only.

- Mike.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Singha » 21 Dec 2011 13:43

can the 5.56mm rounds be made heavier (longer/denser) and higher powder charge used to permit carrying same number of rounds in wider magazines, but slightly heavier weight and more accuracy/lethality at long range?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 21 Dec 2011 13:55

Thanks Vinay for the article

the DNA article says

The RFP stipulates that the rifle must be able to change its calibre from 5.56 x 45mm to 7.62 x 39mm and vice-versa.


So the 5.56x45mm is the NATO standard
7.62 x 39 mm is the Russian standard used on AK-74 etc

So we are not looking at NATO standard 7.62 x 51 mm ?

nash
BRFite
Posts: 885
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nash » 21 Dec 2011 13:58

mikehurst wrote:Well if we are talking about a full scale war; if in such a war we are reduced to scavenging enemy equipment to continue fighting, then i guess we have larger headaches, than compatible ammunition. Ability to use enemy ammo is a capability of use for special forces, or pathfinder type formations only.

- Mike.


May be to solve those larger headaches, IA looking for this dual barrel policy.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby koti » 21 Dec 2011 14:01

mikehurst wrote:Well if we are talking about a full scale war; if in such a war we are reduced to scavenging enemy equipment to continue fighting, then i guess we have larger headaches, than compatible ammunition. Ability to use enemy ammo is a capability of use for special forces, or pathfinder type formations only.

- Mike.


Don't forget booby trapped Ammo.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby koti » 21 Dec 2011 14:14

Austin wrote:So the 5.56x45mm is the NATO standard
7.62 x 39 mm is the Russian standard used on AK-74 etc

So we are not looking at NATO standard 7.62 x 51 mm ?

NATO std ammo has higher kick then the Russian ammo.

We can take advantage of the Ak Ammo if we go fr the 7.62x39 which can be acquired from enemy casualties or cheaply and in good quantity from abroad.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12273
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 21 Dec 2011 14:57

Austin wrote:Thanks Vinay for the article

the DNA article says

The RFP stipulates that the rifle must be able to change its calibre from 5.56 x 45mm to 7.62 x 39mm and vice-versa.


So the 5.56x45mm is the NATO standard
7.62 x 39 mm is the Russian standard used on AK-74 etc

So we are not looking at NATO standard 7.62 x 51 mm ?


Did you mean AK-47, AK-74 uses 5.45 X 39 mm.

On anther note the reason why 7.62 x 39 and 5.56 x 45 could be that the Army wants the same rifle to used in COIN as well as other deployments, while on COIN the solders use the 7.62 X 39 mm for its topping power.

Right now soldiers prefer AK-47 7.62x 39mm during coin because of its full auto and stopping power, an advantage which reduces in normal engaments where you would need to preserve ammo and engagement ranges are higher.

P.S- I hope Ishapore is still manufacturing the NATO 7.62 X 51 mm and modernizes the ammo with a steel tip and still keeps gives FN-FAL to a few soldiers in each unit. These would be useful in Kargil or barren areas type mountains where engagement ranges are higher.

vanand
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 12 Apr 2011 13:19

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vanand » 21 Dec 2011 16:56

China use 5.8x42mm, We use 5.56x45mm, PAK use 7.62x51mm, ISI & talib use 7.62x39mm. Sure scavenging enemy equipment while on offensive will be a headache, instead we can go for rifle which allows change barrel in field FN SCAR we can use both 7.62x51 and 5.56x45.

Dual barrel will be better in COIN, in a war like situation we need to standardize the caliber.

Singhaji if IA consider 5.56 is not having enough stopping power, 5.56x45mm Mk 262 mod1 is available which have long range(700 mts) and have good stopping power even at long range. Or what i suggest is to do what china has done it chose it's own caliber 5.8x42mm. We can go for Grendel 6.5mm which packs more power and long range, and have low recoil than 7.62x51.

mikehurst
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 09 May 2011 17:22

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby mikehurst » 21 Dec 2011 17:54

Okay, my usage of the word headache, was frivolous; let me re-phrase. What I meant was that if our frontline troops engaged in conventional war, are reduced to scavenging enemy ammunition, then compatibility of ammo should be the least of our concern. Essentially stressing the idea that if we are not able to supply even ammo to our soldiers, then our logistics must have been so compromised or that the troop body in question is surrounded or flanked.

However useful the idea of being able to use enemy ammo is at first glance, to my untrained eyes it looks like an unfeasible practice due to at least one obvious reason; that is unpredictable enemy ammo supply. Therefore, the need to acquire ability to use multiple ammo, has to be explained via some other use.

- Mike.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Austin » 21 Dec 2011 18:01

koti wrote:
Austin wrote:So the 5.56x45mm is the NATO standard
7.62 x 39 mm is the Russian standard used on AK-74 etc

So we are not looking at NATO standard 7.62 x 51 mm ?

NATO std ammo has higher kick then the Russian ammo.

We can take advantage of the Ak Ammo if we go fr the 7.62x39 which can be acquired from enemy casualties or cheaply and in good quantity from abroad.


Actually I read its its other way round a Russian standard 7.62x39 kicks more and is much more lethal then NATO standard 5.56x45 , but the latter can be carried in more quantity by individual soldier.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby koti » 21 Dec 2011 18:32

Austin wrote:
koti wrote:NATO std ammo has higher kick then the Russian ammo.

We can take advantage of the Ak Ammo if we go fr the 7.62x39 which can be acquired from enemy casualties or cheaply and in good quantity from abroad.


Actually I read its its other way round a Russian standard 7.62x39 kicks more and is much more lethal then NATO standard 5.56x45 , but the latter can be carried in more quantity by individual soldier.


Sorry. What I meant was with reference to Nato 7.62x51mm

Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Marut » 21 Dec 2011 18:40

My 2 paise on this issue.

From the DNA article, is the reporter sure that the army wants the soldier to carry both the barrels and their ammo during operations? That will be the most asinine thing to do. The Army might have asked for the barrels to be interchangeable for different calibers but at the unit workshop not the frontline. The article seems to be DDM worthy apart from one valid question: Do we really need a new rifle with such exotic specs?

Any rifle or caliber chosen will need to take care of the logistics part apart from the tech specs. 5.56x45, 7.62x39 & 7.62x51 are the most produced caliber currently and we can replenish large amounts of stocks from different sources at short notice while other calibers may not be. They also serve their respective areas very well and there hasn't been complaint from the forces regarding this. So why are we talking of moving to a single round which will take care of both the areas? If it ain't broke then why plan on fixing it? The ones who have switched to this single round don't operate at the level and intensity of US, Ru, India or Pak. So how do we know that this round will fulfill both the roles?

Disclaimer: My expertise with small arms extends only up to the understanding of the science and technology behind these weapons. I haven't fired anything other than 0.22 pea shooter!


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests