Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Small Arms Thread

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.
Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1497
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sid » 07 Feb 2017 11:52

That's an EOTech hybrid sight. Magnifier can be flipped for close quarter battles.

Imagew

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1017
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Khalsa » 13 Feb 2017 01:47

Image

Okay interesting image... Special forces unit gets involved in Militant takedown in Kashmir.
US style helmets with different camo.... even a german looking one (middle soldier).

Last not least ... the odd gun held by the first soldier from the left
M4A1 ?

Full Link
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38950506

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1002
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 13 Feb 2017 12:52

M4A1 is very prevalent within Indian Sec Forces now

Ghatak / RR Cdo / J&K SOG / Various State/city SWAT units / Army SF etc etc. So not surprising.

The Above Gents by the Add-ons to the M-4 would most likely be SF - but not necessarily all from the same unit - Can explain the differing camos. Also - its also possible MARCOS operators have been imbedded in their somewhere. (seen them on previous CT ops)

Discerning detailed info/ making conclusions from a single snap from a Dynamic operation involving alot of bodies is always going to be next to impossible

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Neshant » 13 Feb 2017 13:08

Should take them out with drones when they are apart from the population.

This is by far the best tool for monitoring terrorists activity and hunting them down.

Coupled with machine learning and pattern recognition, terrorist activity like planting EID on roadsides or stirring up a ruckus can be identified the very moment they do it.


Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 991
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Feb 2017 13:43

Image

Ghatak delivery batch for kerala police.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48139
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 28 Feb 2017 06:20

There is a video of a CRPF Instructor (S.N. Pal) firing 31 rounds in a minute from a 0.303 rifle. 30 of the rounds were on target. He beats a TN policemen record of 29 rounds in a minute from a 0.303.

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 28 Feb 2017 06:51

^^^^
Probably has its origins in a British army exercise called the Mad Minute. The 303 Lee Enfield was very suited for this exercise actually, because of its smooth bolt-action. By the way, when the British used the 303 in WW-I, several German units reported they were facing British armed with machine guns, when they were using the 303 in reality, such was the rate of rapid fire.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 28 Feb 2017 17:58

So it took us only 55 years after 1962 to realize the importance/relevance of this assault rifle design and start manufacturing AKs. Now what else? RPG-7 after 2050?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35369
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby SaiK » 06 Mar 2017 02:38


Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Neshant » 06 Mar 2017 06:42

^^ We can't even design small arms for our forces.

What a shame.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4962
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RoyG » 06 Mar 2017 08:07



what an idiotic decision. why not float a domestic competition at least. 1-2 years would be enough for development for private and public sector. also, with the conflict theater shifting to more urban areas what good is a battle rifle going to do? the 7.62 X 51 is hardly controllable on 3 round bursts and full auto.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48139
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 06 Mar 2017 08:08

Neshant wrote:^^ We can't even design small arms for our forces.

What a shame.


No as they are serious about fighting and killing the enemy dead.


Late BrigRayC used to tell INSAS would jam in firefight occasionally. The fault is the .223 mentioned to wound and not kill two enemy as US wanted to swamp the medical logistics.
Any way hope the don't lose time.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33986
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2017 08:41

RoyG wrote:


what an idiotic decision. why not float a domestic competition at least. 1-2 years would be enough for development for private and public sector. also, with the conflict theater shifting to more urban areas what good is a battle rifle going to do? the 7.62 X 51 is hardly controllable on 3 round bursts and full auto.

This is "space filler" news from "official sources". Timepass for reader. Pocket money for journo. There is no company in the world that meets the Indian Army's specs despite the laudatory bhajans sung on all media to phoren companies

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Neshant » 06 Mar 2017 08:42

Regardless, if they cannot produce small arms, it paints a sorry picture of the entire govt based R&D ordinance team.

This kind of development takes more than 1 to 2 years since prototypes have to be manufactured by the hundreds and stress tested in a variety of circumstances. That includes field testing for months on end in a variety of climates & conditions.

But this should have started years ago. The fact that it did not suggests the IA did not want another "make in India" product like the INSAS and intended to purchase a foreign gun. Were it not so they would have put out the request to the govt to start a program to develop a replacement gun years ago.

Its all very sad and who can really believe Indian govt depts have any engineering talent that can produce quality products.

Make in India = buy at great expense from overseas and turn screw drivers in India to assemble it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33986
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2017 09:12

Neshant wrote:Regardless, if they cannot produce small arms, it paints a sorry picture of the entire govt based R&D ordinance team.

They do but the Army does not want them. Other units are picking them up.

Watch from the point linked below - Aero India 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgWbHKg ... u.be&t=375

30,000 units of Ghatak have been ordered by RR (I think) and the Ghatak is also in the competition for assault rifle. But it is normal for us to come down heavily and critically on our own.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9168
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 06 Mar 2017 10:43

Is it not stipulated that they need a rifle that injure than kill and that is why we got INSAS. I remember reading it before. It may be here in BRF or somewhere else. Am I wrong? Now they are complaining that it can not kill?

Reddy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 15:06

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Reddy » 06 Mar 2017 10:49

ArmenT wrote:^^^^
Probably has its origins in a British army exercise called the Mad Minute. The 303 Lee Enfield was very suited for this exercise actually, because of its smooth bolt-action. By the way, when the British used the 303 in WW-I, several German units reported they were facing British armed with machine guns, when they were using the 303 in reality, such was the rate of rapid fire.


I think it has something to do with the unique bolt action/position. You can pull the trigger with out removing your hand from the bolt.

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 06 Mar 2017 11:16

ramana wrote:No as they are serious about fighting and killing the enemy dead.


Late BrigRayC used to tell INSAS would jam in firefight occasionally. The fault is the .223 mentioned to wound and not kill two enemy as US wanted to swamp the medical logistics.
Any way hope the don't lose time.

So why is the .223 at fault for the jamming of the rifle?? The rifle should be designed to fire the cartridge reliably, irrespective of the ballistics of the bullet -- they are two completely different things. Jamming of the rifle is because of (a) crappy ammo manufacturing tolerances (b) crappy manufacturing tolerances of the rifle (c) design faults of the rifle (d) incorrect cleaning and maintenance procedures (e) crappy ammo storage, none of which have to to do with the bullet ballistics.

Also, the .223 (NATO 5.56x45) was used because it was lighter and therefore that the soldier could carry more of them. It was experimentally shown to have better lethal penetration than the 7.62x39 mm. at longer ranges as well. Anyone who tells you any different, just ask them one SIMPLE question: If you think the 7.62x39 is all that, how come the Soviet Union also stopped using the 7.62x39 and have been using the *EVEN SMALLER* 5.45x39 mm. cartridge for the last 40+ years?? This "wound-not-kill" rumor is McNamara marketing and has been going on for decades even when other cartridges were introduced. Some similar rumor went around when the 7.62x51 replaced the .30-06 and the same crap was being talked of when the .30-06 replaced the .30-40 Krag and when the .30-40 Krag replaced the .45-70 Government. Hell, even then people were complaining that the .30-40 Krag was a "small bore" cartridge that shouldn't be replacing the good ol' .45-70!

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 06 Mar 2017 11:27

Reddy wrote:
ArmenT wrote:^^^^
Probably has its origins in a British army exercise called the Mad Minute. The 303 Lee Enfield was very suited for this exercise actually, because of its smooth bolt-action. By the way, when the British used the 303 in WW-I, several German units reported they were facing British armed with machine guns, when they were using the 303 in reality, such was the rate of rapid fire.


I think it has something to do with the unique bolt action/position. You can pull the trigger with out removing your hand from the bolt.

Yep, the design was pretty ergonomic. The bolt handle mechanism is very close to the trigger mechanism when the bolt is closed. The user can hold the bolt handle with their thumb and first finger and use their middle finger to pull the trigger. The user doesn't need to let go of the thumb and first finger while pulling the trigger, therefore reloading after the shot is quicker. After the shot, the user simply flips up and pulls the bolt handle back and since the Lee Enfield is a "cock-on-close" mechanism rather than a "cock-on-open" like the Mauser or Mosin-Nagant style rifles, the initial opening of the bolt was faster too (it almost slides back by itself after flipping up). On top of that, it has a nice ergonomic sight, so that the user need not move his head at all while pulling the bolt back, thereby keeping the cheek weld to the stock and reacquiring the sight picture much faster.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9280
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Mar 2017 11:48

Yagnasri wrote:Is it not stipulated that they need a rifle that injure than kill and that is why we got INSAS. I remember reading it before. It may be here in BRF or somewhere else. Am I wrong? Now they are complaining that it can not kill?


This is pure BS, the real reason it was deceided to go for 5.56*45 Ammunition was lessons from the Sri Lanka operations where the SLR was too cumbersome for close combat with high recoile compared to the 7.62*39 Type 56 rifles LTTE employed. but problem with 7.62*39 is because bullet tends to drop it is very inaccurate above 100 meters and not very effective in 100-500 meters conventional combat requirement. But the 5.56*45 mm cannot drop a Jihadi unless it hits a vital area where the 7.62 *39 and 7.62*51 can smash a femur bones etc even it hits legs/arms etc.

The difficulty is finding a bullet that has the stopping power in close combat urban situations but not too cumbersome with a long barrel and high recoil but good enough for conventional combat. All armies are struggling for this hence, toying with the idea of multi caliber rifle.

The other solution is procure 2 rifles per soldier 7.62*39 for Coin and 7.62*51 for conventional deployments. But this increases logistics, better security of arms and asking all soldiers to keep 2 rifles in working order wit sights zerod for the unique way each persons Brain eye coordination works. and Soldiers need to be rotated away from Coin action zones.

mahaperu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 26 Feb 2010 21:40

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby mahaperu » 06 Mar 2017 11:59

This is sad news indeed. Typically in any industry, the moment you are done releasing one design, you start designing the next generation. The fact that either they decided not too or the govt stopped them is a real blow. By this record, we should stop spending money on LCA too. Soon, the govt will decide not to spend on the next generation. R&D is not a one off thing that happens once in life. Its a continuous process of creating prototypes, manufacturing and releasing products, followed by learning lessons and gathering requirements. Infact typically various industries are already looking at products 2-3 generations beyond the current. Govt has to be responsible for all those involved. I guess 50 yeas from now, India will still be importing basic equipment. Not able to mass manufacture any decent product at the right price/quality combination.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Rishi Verma » 06 Mar 2017 12:21

Every "sad story" of Indian defense manufacturing boils down to issues related to mass production. There needs to be an entity that looks at quality issues of domestic arms and goes into technical details of "why x units of army are not satisfied with y batch of z weapon".

We should not blame the armed forces for preferring an imported weapon (small arms or large) until exact reasons are found.

It's always worrisome if INSAS model x passed the famed hot and cold trials from Ajmer to Ladakh and then production units started showing quality issues. Same with Arjuns, 155mm howitzers, or whatever. Passing trials of prototype samples do not predict performance of mass produced pieces. That's where the main problem lies.

It's not military's job to ensure manufacturing quality issues. And manufactures like OFBs are not motivated or trained enough to ensure quality of build. Then a 3rd party needs to be there to ensure quality.

For all the mediocrity in our society, the office of the Election Commission does a fantastic job, they are part of government yet have independent powers. Such offices can be emulated in many other areas.

Hypothetically "Commissioner of Defense Quality" with sweeping powers to reject a lot or shut down a line before it gets delivered.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 06 Mar 2017 13:47

ArmenT and Aditya_V have covered the points well.

But there might be another small but IMHO important reason which we should not overlook

The current jihadi scum are supplied with and thus wear much better protection (BPJs) than the vermin of the 90's-00's

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 888
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RKumar » 06 Mar 2017 14:25

It is shame that we have to import bread n butter of war i.e. basic ammo n guns and we want to fight two front war :((

I sincerely hope this is not GoI, MoD and army seriously considering. We must own the design and manufactorying.

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 06 Mar 2017 18:36

Aditya_V wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:Is it not stipulated that they need a rifle that injure than kill and that is why we got INSAS. I remember reading it before. It may be here in BRF or somewhere else. Am I wrong? Now they are complaining that it can not kill?


This is pure BS, the real reason it was deceided to go for 5.56*45 Ammunition was lessons from the Sri Lanka operations where the SLR was too cumbersome for close combat with high recoile compared to the 7.62*39 Type 56 rifles LTTE employed. but problem with 7.62*39 is because bullet tends to drop it is very inaccurate above 100 meters and not very effective in 100-500 meters conventional combat requirement. But the 5.56*45 mm cannot drop a Jihadi unless it hits a vital area where the 7.62 *39 and 7.62*51 can smash a femur bones etc even it hits legs/arms etc.

7.62x51 mm. cartridges produce a lot of recoil, which make the shooter lose accuracy in burst and full-auto mode. Also, they are much heavier. A user can carry nearly 2x the number of 5.56x45 mm. cartridges for the same weight of 7.62x51 mm. cartridges. Which are two reasons for going for the lighter cartridge.

Most of the debate between 5.56x45 vs. 7.62x39 has to do with the terminal ballistics of their respective bullets. The smaller and lighter 5.56x45 cartridge bullet has a flatter path and carries enough velocity at the 600 meter mark to penetrate through 60s era Soviet body armor (which is when the cartridge was selected). The 7.62x39 cartridge (also called M43) moves slower and loses a lot of velocity beyond the 100 meter mark.The wounding capabilities of its bullet are also different. At ranges of about 100 meters or so, the 5.56x45 mm. cartridge (also called the M855) bullet will fragment upon hitting a body and the fragments will separate and spread out, producing a bigger hole than 5.56 mm diameter and increasing the chance of hitting vital organs and such. Above this distance, the fragmentation possibility diminishes rapidly (allegedly M855 frag. capability was designed keeping some Geneva convention protocol in mind). So if a target is hit at say 400 meters, very good chance that the hole produced will stay at 5.56 mm. diameter and therefore, unless the bullet is aimed at a vital spot, the chance of stopping the target is lessened. The M43 bullet doesn't fragment at all, but due to the way it is balanced, when it hits soft tissue, the bullet travels about 10 inches in and then starts to yaw significantly, thereby increasing the size of the wound and the wounding potential. It does not lose this yawing ability at greater ranges, even though it starts to lose accuracy and velocity more rapidly. However, note that it needs to have significant penetration depth before yawing happens. In many situations, the bullet enters and exits before it has a chance to yaw, therefore only leaving a 7.62mm. diameter hole. Many studies of woundings from the Vietnam era to the 80s showed that this situation happened in the majority of cases. This greatly reduces the wounding potential of the M43 to around the level of a small handgun cartridge with non-expanding bullets. Which means that unless it is aimed at a vital spot, the M43 also has much less wounding potential in many cases. So unless it is aimed at a femur directly, a shot to the arm or leg isn't going to do do much.

However, due to heavier weight of the M43 bullet, it has less chance of deviating when fired through light foliage and leaves (i.e. behind cover), whereas the M855 bullet can get deflected by so much as a bee getting in the way of the bullet.

So what is to be done? Turns out that people have improved the original bullet designs. For instance, some other cartridges in the 7.62x39 mm. caliber include the M67 (Yugoslav), Chinese, Czech and other cartridges were developed well after the M43. In these designs, the bullet starts to yaw much sooner (in like 3 inches of penetration or so) and therefore, the wounding potential is more when using these cartridges. Similarly, the US military recently went with the M855 Mark 1, where the bullet has a much better chance of fragmenting even at ranges well past 100 meters and the US military are reporting much success with the improved cartridge. The Russians abandoned the M43 and went with the smaller 5.45x39 mm. cartridge since 1974 (when they replaced the AKM with AK-74) and the bullet in this cartridge also yaws and tumbles a lot easier, producing much larger wounds than 5.45 mm diameter holes. In fact, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the early 80s, the Afghan Muj used to call the 5.45x39 mm. bullet as the "poison bullet" on account of the fact that it produced much larger wounds than its size indicated (well that, and lack of quality medical care meant wounds were often fatal in a few days).

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 833
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 06 Mar 2017 18:59

FWIW, the first AKMs were imported by the army because the SLRs were too long and snagged with the new parachutes imported in early 1980s; the SFF had AKMs, vz 58s and Type 56s even before that for various reasons.

Actually a two-rifle solution is not a bad idea:

Australia tried a multi-caliber rifle (Steyr AUG in 5.56x45 and 9x19mm) in early 1990s, and found that the operational cost was much higher than what the salesmen advertised. The armorers spent a lot of time fixing the issues that the soldiers were having, and when the man-hours were added up it was found that buying a bunch of MP-5s and training the smaller set of users would have been cheaper than the whole exercise.

India essentially does it with "sector-stores" (AKs in COIN areas) and "organic stores" (INSAS everywhere else) on an ad hoc basis... just do the same in an organized manner, with a doctrinal justification that the sector-stores will be given to second/third-line reserves in case of a large war.

With INSAS 2.0, people should settle on a sturdy and accurate AKM-derived design -- like the Finns did with Valmet or the E Germans with Wenger rifle -- and produce the heck out of it in separate lines of 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 mm. Cut out all the fancy bells-and-whistles of an INSAS (ex carrying handle, gas regulator, 3-round bust etc) and make its core components sturdier and reliable, and I think most soldiers will be happy with it. Build the 7.62x39 mm version in the millions, and export the heck out of it to allies like Vietnam and Afghanistan at "friendship prices".

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 833
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 06 Mar 2017 19:27

Recoil and weight are two reasons... sight and psychology are another two. For most of us it is hard to acquire a proper sight picture as far as the full effective range of a 5.56x45mm, let alone a 7.62x51mm. Secondly, for most of us it is psychologically less disturbing to hunt in a group (vs individually). Thus the job of most rifle-men is to herd the enemy into kill-zones, where the MMG, AGL and mortar crews do the job. No point in going retail shopping when you have wholesale club membership.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60484
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Singha » 06 Mar 2017 19:41

syrians and iraqi snipers use some of moisin nagant
http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/imag ... series.jpg

but of late they and the YPG are moving enmasse to 50cal rifles?. a retired gent called Abu tahseen working with the PMU claims 170 ISIS kills and as a young man fought in 70s era wars

what rifle is he using here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33986
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2017 19:54

The OFB guy at Aero India said that the Ghatak is trying to enter the assault rifle competition for the Indian army by adapting to the 7.62x51 round.

I have never heard of any army that is totally and fully satisfied with their weapon and who don't look with envy at the Kalashnikov. I would be happy to read reports of armies that say that they are perfectly happy with their weapon. Would not trust the Chinese here - but what do the Israelis use and what do they say?

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2206
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby darshhan » 06 Mar 2017 20:17

ArmenT wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
This is pure BS, the real reason it was deceided to go for 5.56*45 Ammunition was lessons from the Sri Lanka operations where the SLR was too cumbersome for close combat with high recoile compared to the 7.62*39 Type 56 rifles LTTE employed. but problem with 7.62*39 is because bullet tends to drop it is very inaccurate above 100 meters and not very effective in 100-500 meters conventional combat requirement. But the 5.56*45 mm cannot drop a Jihadi unless it hits a vital area where the 7.62 *39 and 7.62*51 can smash a femur bones etc even it hits legs/arms etc.

7.62x51 mm. cartridges produce a lot of recoil, which make the shooter lose accuracy in burst and full-auto mode. Also, they are much heavier. A user can carry nearly 2x the number of 5.56x45 mm. cartridges for the same weight of 7.62x51 mm. cartridges. Which are two reasons for going for the lighter cartridge.

Most of the debate between 5.56x45 vs. 7.62x39 has to do with the terminal ballistics of their respective bullets. The smaller and lighter 5.56x45 cartridge bullet has a flatter path and carries enough velocity at the 600 meter mark to penetrate through 60s era Soviet body armor (which is when the cartridge was selected). The 7.62x39 cartridge (also called M43) moves slower and loses a lot of velocity beyond the 100 meter mark.The wounding capabilities of its bullet are also different. At ranges of about 100 meters or so, the 5.56x45 mm. cartridge (also called the M855) bullet will fragment upon hitting a body and the fragments will separate and spread out, producing a bigger hole than 5.56 mm diameter and increasing the chance of hitting vital organs and such. Above this distance, the fragmentation possibility diminishes rapidly (allegedly M855 frag. capability was designed keeping some Geneva convention protocol in mind). So if a target is hit at say 400 meters, very good chance that the hole produced will stay at 5.56 mm. diameter and therefore, unless the bullet is aimed at a vital spot, the chance of stopping the target is lessened. The M43 bullet doesn't fragment at all, but due to the way it is balanced, when it hits soft tissue, the bullet travels about 10 inches in and then starts to yaw significantly, thereby increasing the size of the wound and the wounding potential. It does not lose this yawing ability at greater ranges, even though it starts to lose accuracy and velocity more rapidly. However, note that it needs to have significant penetration depth before yawing happens. In many situations, the bullet enters and exits before it has a chance to yaw, therefore only leaving a 7.62mm. diameter hole. Many studies of woundings from the Vietnam era to the 80s showed that this situation happened in the majority of cases. This greatly reduces the wounding potential of the M43 to around the level of a small handgun cartridge with non-expanding bullets. Which means that unless it is aimed at a vital spot, the M43 also has much less wounding potential in many cases. So unless it is aimed at a femur directly, a shot to the arm or leg isn't going to do do much.

However, due to heavier weight of the M43 bullet, it has less chance of deviating when fired through light foliage and leaves (i.e. behind cover), whereas the M855 bullet can get deflected by so much as a bee getting in the way of the bullet.

So what is to be done? Turns out that people have improved the original bullet designs. For instance, some other cartridges in the 7.62x39 mm. caliber include the M67 (Yugoslav), Chinese, Czech and other cartridges were developed well after the M43. In these designs, the bullet starts to yaw much sooner (in like 3 inches of penetration or so) and therefore, the wounding potential is more when using these cartridges. Similarly, the US military recently went with the M855 Mark 1, where the bullet has a much better chance of fragmenting even at ranges well past 100 meters and the US military are reporting much success with the improved cartridge. The Russians abandoned the M43 and went with the smaller 5.45x39 mm. cartridge since 1974 (when they replaced the AKM with AK-74) and the bullet in this cartridge also yaws and tumbles a lot easier, producing much larger wounds than 5.45 mm diameter holes. In fact, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the early 80s, the Afghan Muj used to call the 5.45x39 mm. bullet as the "poison bullet" on account of the fact that it produced much larger wounds than its size indicated (well that, and lack of quality medical care meant wounds were often fatal in a few days).


Armen, your analysis is right but only in context where the combatants are not wearing body armor. I doubt if more than 5% of combatants were actually wearing body armor in vietnam.

From what I have read 7.62x51 offers much better penetration wrt body armors( especially where steel/ceramic inserts are used). Even the vehicles are being uparmored these days.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60484
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Singha » 07 Mar 2017 17:39

do small arms TFTAness really matter a whole lot? the basic kalashnikov will pump out rounds reliably and work in tough conditions. it can take a reflex sight or laser pointer if needed. it comes in short barrel "bin laden" models also and with huge banana mags.

in syria and iraq, except in CQB, most of the casualties are due to MMG, HMG, 23mm cannons, artillery, mortars and air strikes.

to some extent I think the western small arms shops are getting rich on skills keepalive deals by their respective govts..while making lot of money from exporting hyped up kit to 3rd world and civilian sales

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 07 Mar 2017 19:54

Singha wrote:what rifle is he using here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html


That would be the Iranian AM50 12.7mm single shot Anti material rifle .. a somewhat crude (but effective) copy of the Austrian Steyr HS.50

Some more info at this link

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4132
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Rakesh » 08 Mar 2017 03:09

India To Purchase New Army Assault Rifle
https://sputniknews.com/asia/2017030610 ... e-assault/

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 08 Mar 2017 07:05

Speaking of firearm reliability and faulty design, here's an example of even an experienced manufacturer sometimes getting things wrong. The firearm in this video is a Glock Model 17 Gen. 4. They introduced these Gen 4. models in 2010, so fairly recent. Turns out some of the early models had a faulty ejector that would cause some pistols to stovepipe frequently and eject erratically. However, the company put out a fix for it, which is why they have a good reputation around the world. Video shows the same pistol before and after the ejector was replaced with a newer part.


rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rohitvats » 08 Mar 2017 10:31

ArmenT wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
This is pure BS, the real reason it was deceided to go for 5.56*45 Ammunition was lessons from the Sri Lanka operations where the SLR was too cumbersome for close combat with high recoile compared to the 7.62*39 Type 56 rifles LTTE employed. but problem with 7.62*39 is because bullet tends to drop it is very inaccurate above 100 meters and not very effective in 100-500 meters conventional combat requirement. But the 5.56*45 mm cannot drop a Jihadi unless it hits a vital area where the 7.62 *39 and 7.62*51 can smash a femur bones etc even it hits legs/arms etc.

7.62x51 mm. cartridges produce a lot of recoil, which make the shooter lose accuracy in burst and full-auto mode. Also, they are much heavier. A user can carry nearly 2x the number of 5.56x45 mm. cartridges for the same weight of 7.62x51 mm. cartridges. Which are two reasons for going for the lighter cartridge.

Most of the debate between 5.56x45 vs. 7.62x39 has to do with the terminal ballistics of their respective bullets. The smaller and lighter 5.56x45 cartridge bullet has a flatter path and carries enough velocity at the 600 meter mark to penetrate through 60s era Soviet body armor (which is when the cartridge was selected). The 7.62x39 cartridge (also called M43) moves slower and loses a lot of velocity beyond the 100 meter mark.The wounding capabilities of its bullet are also different. At ranges of about 100 meters or so, the 5.56x45 mm. cartridge (also called the M855) bullet will fragment upon hitting a body and the fragments will separate and spread out, producing a bigger hole than 5.56 mm diameter and increasing the chance of hitting vital organs and such. Above this distance, the fragmentation possibility diminishes rapidly (allegedly M855 frag. capability was designed keeping some Geneva convention protocol in mind). So if a target is hit at say 400 meters, very good chance that the hole produced will stay at 5.56 mm. diameter and therefore, unless the bullet is aimed at a vital spot, the chance of stopping the target is lessened. The M43 bullet doesn't fragment at all, but due to the way it is balanced, when it hits soft tissue, the bullet travels about 10 inches in and then starts to yaw significantly, thereby increasing the size of the wound and the wounding potential. It does not lose this yawing ability at greater ranges, even though it starts to lose accuracy and velocity more rapidly. However, note that it needs to have significant penetration depth before yawing happens. In many situations, the bullet enters and exits before it has a chance to yaw, therefore only leaving a 7.62mm. diameter hole. Many studies of woundings from the Vietnam era to the 80s showed that this situation happened in the majority of cases. This greatly reduces the wounding potential of the M43 to around the level of a small handgun cartridge with non-expanding bullets. Which means that unless it is aimed at a vital spot, the M43 also has much less wounding potential in many cases. So unless it is aimed at a femur directly, a shot to the arm or leg isn't going to do do much.

However, due to heavier weight of the M43 bullet, it has less chance of deviating when fired through light foliage and leaves (i.e. behind cover), whereas the M855 bullet can get deflected by so much as a bee getting in the way of the bullet.

So what is to be done? Turns out that people have improved the original bullet designs. For instance, some other cartridges in the 7.62x39 mm. caliber include the M67 (Yugoslav), Chinese, Czech and other cartridges were developed well after the M43. In these designs, the bullet starts to yaw much sooner (in like 3 inches of penetration or so) and therefore, the wounding potential is more when using these cartridges. Similarly, the US military recently went with the M855 Mark 1, where the bullet has a much better chance of fragmenting even at ranges well past 100 meters and the US military are reporting much success with the improved cartridge. The Russians abandoned the M43 and went with the smaller 5.45x39 mm. cartridge since 1974 (when they replaced the AKM with AK-74) and the bullet in this cartridge also yaws and tumbles a lot easier, producing much larger wounds than 5.45 mm diameter holes. In fact, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the early 80s, the Afghan Muj used to call the 5.45x39 mm. bullet as the "poison bullet" on account of the fact that it produced much larger wounds than its size indicated (well that, and lack of quality medical care meant wounds were often fatal in a few days).


ArmenT - thank you for this wonderful and very informative post. Helped me to understand the issue in detail. It is posts like these which make it worthwhile to visit BRF.

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 08 Mar 2017 11:43

^^^^
Thanks much sir. Forgot to mention a couple more points in the post. The M855 was originally designed in the 1960s with the 20 inch M16 barrel in mind, so the fragmentation and yawing would happen at distances up to 100 meters or so. Bear in mind that the ability to frag. and yaw for this bullet is velocity dependent, which is why the probability of this happening goes down over longer distances. The trouble is that when the US military went with the M14 carbine with a shorter 14.5 inch barrel, the velocity of the bullet coming out of the barrel was lessened due to the shorter barrel, which means the distance at which fragging and yawing happen also got correspondingly lessened, which led to some complaints about performance in Iraq and Afghanistan. This got fixed when the improved M855 Mark I was developed.

The penetration depth of the bullet before yawing and fragging occurs (about 10 inches for M43, 6-7 inches for M855) also is a factor. The muj. were often protected by the fact that they were skinny and starved with something like 7.5 inch thick torsos, so bullets would often go through them before having chance to yaw and would not transfer their full energy to the target. That's where improved rounds like the Yugoslav, Czech, Chinese, M855A1, 5.45x39 etc. were better because they yaw within about 3 inches of penetration.

The M43 bullet of the AK is heavier and moves slower, but at distances below 100 meters or so, it delivers about 15% more kinetic energy than the M855 (fired out of original M16), due to larger mass. This means better punch and penetration through barriers at shorter distances. However, it starts to lose velocity more rapidly and by 300 meters, the M855 actually delivers about 25% more kinetic energy than M43 and it only starts getting worse from here on for the AK bullet. Which is why people say that the AK becomes rapidly less effective after 100 meters or so.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33986
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 08 Mar 2017 14:43

ArmenT wrote:The penetration depth of the bullet before yawing and fragging occurs (about 10 inches for M43, 6-7 inches for M855) also is a factor. The muj. were often protected by the fact that they were skinny and starved with something like 7.5 inch thick torsos, so bullets would often go through them before having chance to yaw and would not transfer their full energy to the target. That's where improved rounds like the Yugoslav, Czech, Chinese, M855A1, 5.45x39 etc. were better because they yaw within about 3 inches of penetration.

The M43 bullet of the AK is heavier and moves slower, but at distances below 100 meters or so, it delivers about 15% more kinetic energy than the M855 (fired out of original M16), due to larger mass. This means better punch and penetration through barriers at shorter distances. However, it starts to lose velocity more rapidly and by 300 meters, the M855 actually delivers about 25% more kinetic energy than M43 and it only starts getting worse from here on for the AK bullet. Which is why people say that the AK becomes rapidly less effective after 100 meters or so.

Unfortunately ArmenTs super post sounds like a medical paper that says:

If the patient is diagnosed and treatment started within 24 hours of the onset of illness, drug X has an 86% chance of curing the ailment completely. When started on day 2 - a survey of 2400 patients showed that drug X was only 62% effective. After day 3 Drug X is found to work only in 47% of the time. Given that in rural India patients often come for treatment only after day 3 the chance of an early and quick remission using Drug X is less than 15%


What this means is that there is no ideal weapon/bullet combination for all situations for all time. I only hope the Indian army is not looking for unobtanium

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 960
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Manish_P » 08 Mar 2017 15:15

shiv wrote:What this means is that there is no ideal weapon/bullet combination for all situations for all time. I only hope the Indian army is not looking for unobtanium


The first part is a fact of life (or death). The second part is debatable :D

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 582
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Shalav » 10 Mar 2017 09:14

So 20 years ago the IA decided they wanted to retire their 7.62 x 51 FN FAL's (Ishapore 1A1) in favour of the 5.56 x 45 NATO. Some of the reasons given among many IIRC was that they wanted to reduce the burden on soldiers by using lighter calibre ammo and they wanted a more modern calibre ballistics. Now they have suddenly decided they want the 7.62 x 51 after all, and suddenly all the problems of weight and ballistic performance they described with 7.62x51 calibre 20 years ago have no relevance?! WTF?

Since they were re-equipping entirely they could have also opted for 7.62 x 39 Warsaw Pact or the 5.45 x 39 Russian. No, for some odd reason which is still not clear they opted for the NATO calibre. So much was written and argued about this calibre change right here on this forum.

In the intervening years they also called for a "multi-calibre" rifle to replace the INSAS - no one from any country in the world was able to provide one with the specs they set. IIR that farce correctly they wanted a 5.56 to also fire an intermediate 6.8(6.5?) calibre with only a barrel change and WITHOUT changing the bolt and bolt-carrier, or they wanted a complete barrel and bolt change in one action. Even me with very little knowledge knows only changing the barrel would not suffice as the 6.5 came in either 6.5x39 6.5x49 and the 6.8 came in 6.8x42 - all of which do not match the 5.56x45 calibre cartridge length. Any calibre change would also also mean changing the magazine receiver - at that point it would be simpler to exchange the entire rifle rather than fiddle about with barrel + bolt-carrier group + lower receiver change in the field. The trials of the so called "multi-calibre" rifles failed spectacularly! I wonder if the powers that be in the IA ever introspected and ordered an inquiry into why something so logically and physically impossible was even sent out as an RFP?

When will the IA ever do their own research into what actually works for them and what is practical? Why not intermediates 6.5 or 6.8? Where is their research on these calibres? They have never ever published or provided any research from any IA technical division for something as basic as stating why they prefer a particular calibre? All we hear is now "we want to change back to the previously discarded calibre, because reasons...". If this continues 20 years from now we might even hear them say "we need to change over to an intermediate 6.5 / 6.8 calibre, because reasons...".

It just makes me SMH seeing so much effort and money wasted every 20 years or so, because after all this time IA still cannot decide what calibre is good for them!

I'm betting they are looking at the phoren 7.62x51 calibre rifle only. The RM should just order them to work with the OFB and up-barrel the INSAS or another suitable and ready available Indian designed rifle with a 7.62 bolt / bolt-carrier / barrel combo - just like the Israeli Galil 7.62 variant is an up-barreled from the standard 5.56 variant. It's not as if this is high technology where the OFB will have to re-invent the wheel - even they should be capable of this.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33986
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 10 Mar 2017 10:11

Shalav wrote: I wonder if the powers that be in the IA ever introspected and ordered an inquiry into why something so logically and physically impossible was even sent out as an RFP?
.

There was a scathing article on how these RFPs are made. Some junior officer is tasked with the "research" on what is the "latest" to come up with specs. He surfs the net for brochures and writes something up. That is inspected by a middle level officer who needs to show that he is more clever than the junior by half - so he adds some requirements of his own and then presents it to the senior officer who signs the RFP for release.

The story does not sound implausible to me at all.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashthor, darshand, deejay, L Ram, yensoy and 58 guests