Small Arms Thread

manish
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 29 Jan 2009 16:13

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby manish » 20 May 2009 11:56

rkhanna wrote:^^ got this off another forum.. Hope it helps in some way.

FN-MAG ..Aka GPMG

The thing about the GPMG is that is is "general purpose" – the usual definition of this is that it can be light enough to accompany the squad in normal ops, whilst also being "heavy" enough to provide sustained fire support from a tripod when required.


SAW
- shares ammo with assault rifles
- carry more rounds per unit weight means more ammo
- shorter effective range compared to GPMG
- less stopping power compared to GPMG
- changeable barrel (but not done as much in practice?)

Bipod-Mounted GPMG
- rifle caliber ammo can't be shared
- fewer rounds per unit weight means less ammo
- longer effective range compared to SAW
- more stopping power compared to SAW
- changeable barrel (done more often in practice?)



rkhannaji, thanks for the info. This is more or less in line with my understanding of the topic.

Some of the posts that debated choosing between the INSAS LMG and MAG/Bren triggered my comment. While I agree that they are not mutually exclusive and do have overlapping roles in certain contexts, I would still think each has its own place. IMHO of course.

A while ago, I remember that there was a nice discussion on the same topic on TankNet, I will try to dig up the links if I can.

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Div » 23 May 2009 18:03

rkhanna wrote:

SAW
- shares ammo with assault rifles
- carry more rounds per unit weight means more ammo
- shorter effective range compared to GPMG
- less stopping power compared to GPMG
- changeable barrel (but not done as much in practice?)

Bipod-Mounted GPMG
- rifle caliber ammo can't be shared
- fewer rounds per unit weight means less ammo
- longer effective range compared to SAW
- more stopping power compared to SAW
- changeable barrel (done more often in practice?)

But on the other hand the US still maintains 2-3 platoon level GPMGs and I've read that units in Iraq and Afghanistan prefer the "greater firepower" of the M240 (whatever they mean by that.) Are these expected to deliver more firepower and at a greater range compared to the SAWs or are they merely intended to augment raw squad-level firepower (while using fewer men) with no real difference in range or volume of fire?


AND PENETRATION. A guy behind a small tree may be safe from 5.56 but 7.62 will plow right through the tree!

SAW is an important component of the house clearing as it is lighter and the round is less likely to penetrate into friendly rooms indirectly, while still giving the high volume of firepower. During the approach, the G-PIG is an important component in suppressing the house so the clearance teams can approach in safety.

In the open defensive, the first statement applies. MGs are designed into the defensive plan in terms of their fighting range and firepower. The G-PIG covers the medium range and the SAW covers the closer range. If equipped, HMG (M2 50 Cal) covers the long range, otherwise, most nations now use either 20mm, 25mm or 30mm chain gun or auto cannon for that purpose.

In open offensive, the SAW accompanies the assault group and provides point firepower to the section commander in overcoming single strong points, while the G-PIG covers the whole assault group with suppression fires and depth fires to suppress then isolate the position being assaulted.


First, SAW and GPMG are not mutually exclusive categories; second, neither category is defined by calibre.


The Britsh operate Both the FN-MAG GPMG and the SA-80 in the LMG role

The Americans have the FN-MAG in the GPMG role and the M249 (MINIMI) in the LMG role.

Both have .50cals for the HMG role.


Very interesting post.

The M249 seems like a pretty customizable weapon. Found the cloth magazines quite interesting. Apparently they hold 100 rounds.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 23 May 2009 19:34

the M249 i.e FN-Minimi is a 5.56mm weapon and very similar to the IMI Negev LMG in capability. The Negev i believe is lighter but could be wrong.
In terms of the Indian Context here are some Points Visavis the Minimi. Btw the Negev Soft Drum Mag (Nylon bag) carries 200 rounds (2.7kgs)

IMI NEGEV

Image

With Soft Magazine Case

Image


PERFORMANCE
Like the Galil the Negev was born in the dessert and thus sandproof, very reliable and robust. The rate of fire is a little higher than the Minimi. The rate of fire can be set on ‘high’ while firing belt-fed, allowing more rounds on target while exposed. The Minimi fires at a high rate of fire when fed by magazines. The Negev fires at its low rate of fire when fed with magazines. That is a great advantage over the Minimi. Firing at a high rate of fire with a small amount of ammo is not advisable. The Negev has the same accuracy as the Minimi. The Negev Commando is not less accurate than the Negev, but has a shorter range. The main drawback of a shorter barrel is not loss of accuracy, but loss of range and velocity. A shorter barrel tends not to overheat as quickly as the longer counterpart


Some Minimi’s were bought to test them in desert conditions. The Minimi was found to unreliable in desert conditions and the order was given to develop an Israeli machinegun with the same features. A new machinegun was developed and named to a desert in Israel: Negev (feel the irony). The Negev looks quite the same as the Minimi, but inside it is very different.


The Negev is far more reliable in all kinds of conditions, including artic. Instead of firing full-automatic only, the Negev can also fire semi-automatic. The Negev can also use steel magazines, which are inserted into the side, just as with the Minimi. Not only M16 style but also of the Galil type can be used. When fitted with a magazine adapter the magazines are fitted in the same manner as an assault rifle, but it can no longer be belt-fed. The Minimi fires at a high rate of fire when fed by magazines. The Negev fires at its low rate of fire when fed with magazines. Like all new Israeli weapons the Negev was first used by the Seyarets and Shayetets. A commando version was immediately developed. There is only one difference between the Negev and Negev Commando: the barrel. The Negev Commando has a shorter barrel to make it less cumbersome. It is comparable with the Minimi Para.


http://home.wxs.nl/~rouw0062/dcdbase/fa_mg_negev.htm

The Negev takes Assault rifle magazines from the bottom while the Minimi takes them from the side. I remember reading that the British army actually prefered the Negev to the Minimi (not that the minimi is a bad weapon) however politics didnt allow them to buy.

Negev in different Avatars.

With regular AR Magazine.

Image

With huge Magazine metal Box Attached (how many rounds can that thing carry?!!)

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/LIC-2004-ISRAEL/abv.jpg

Along with the tavor tot was Offered for the Negev as well. (few hundred Negevs were bought for SF use).. However what i was told sometime back was that the Army is reluctant to change over from the Bren/Mag 7.62mm Capability to the 5.56mm capability. It will involve a paradigm shift in operational doctrine which i guess will take its due time.
Last edited by rkhanna on 23 May 2009 19:39, edited 1 time in total.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 23 May 2009 19:38

Another Contender to the Minimi or the Negev is the HK MG4 ( The MG-3 used by the pakistanis is a equal to the FN-MAG)

Image

However for some reason while most nato Countries use the FN MINIMI only Germany and Spain use the MG-4

Other SAW's from around the world.

The world famous FN-Minimi/M-294/C-9
5.56mm
Belt/Magazine
1040mm 465mm barrel
6.85kg empty/10kg with 200 round belt
700-1000rpm

Singapore's super light weight Ultimax
5.56mm
Drum/Magazine
6.5kg with 100 round drum
1030mm 508mm barrel
500-540rpm

Israel's rugged Negev
5.56mm
Belt/Magazine
7.5kg empty
1020mm 460mm barrel
850-950rpm

The Ameli a 5.56mm SAW that is a scaled down MG-3
5.56mm
Belt
5.7kg
970mm 400mm barrel
850-950 rpm

Britains SA-80 based LSW
5.56mm
Magazine
6.88kg
900mm 638mm barrel
650-800rpm

The eldery RPD
7.62mm
Belt
7.1kg
1036mm 521mmm barrel
700rpm

The RPK with its fixed barrel
7.62mm
Magazine/Drum
5.9kg
1035mm 591mm barrel
700rpm

AUG LSW
5.56mm
Magazine
5.4kg
900mm 621mm barrel
680rpm

anmol
BRFite
Posts: 1854
Joined: 05 May 2009 17:39

USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit Chinese & Indian

Postby anmol » 25 May 2009 16:04

USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit Chinese & Indian Army

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/27/update-usa-buys-enough-guns-in-3-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/

Direct Link to PDF:http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nics_checks_total.pdf

US citizens bought on average 3,177,256 guns every 3 months in 2008.

USA also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Srivastav » 26 May 2009 08:16

6 months after 26/11, modernisation of police stalled by PSU infighting

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/05/ ... on-of.html

Has anyone ever heard of or seen pics of this "Amogh" carbine developed by OFB.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gaur » 26 May 2009 12:48

^^ The blog says that SAR-21 MMS is jointly developed by OFB and Singapore! :-? This is the first time that I have read this. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Srivastav » 26 May 2009 13:38

The other carbine, the SAR-21 MMS, jointly offered by the OFB and Singapore Technologies Kinetic (STK), was found suitable by the NSG for India’s needs.


No it says jointly offered. it seems that STK developed it and are offering OFB TOT and joint production. So nothing about it seems jointly devloped. But hey nothing wrong with that, wee need theese guns and tot for SAR-21 is a good stop gap measure, till we develop our own product.

STK pledged to transfer technology in full, thereby allowing the OFB’s new factory (coming up at Korwar in the Amethi parliamentary constituency) to manufacture lakhs of carbines for the CPOs in subsequent five-year plans.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 26 May 2009 14:34

why would they chose the SAR-21 when we already have ToT for the Zitara which is the TAR-21 Carbine. The Tavor and the SAR-21 are essentially the same project that split when the singaporians went their own way. They are as close as two guns can be. The SAR is also more expensive from what i have read and has some greater teething problems than the Tavor.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gaur » 26 May 2009 14:49

Last I heard, SAR-21 was facing many problems including jamming. Are there no other options? What about Micro Tavor? IMHO even smgs like UMP would suffice for police (except for naxal infested areas, NE AND J&K where range is an issue).

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby d_berwal » 26 May 2009 15:25

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... id=3035538

this is a zimple issue of infighting between two PSU (OFB & BEML)

OFB-STK is proposing SAR 21 MMS
BEML - IWI is proposing Tavour SMG (9MM) also known as X95

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 26 May 2009 15:33

>>>BEML - IWI is proposing Tavour SMG (9MM) also known as X95<<<

The Tavor can use both the 9mm and the 5.56mm magazines

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby d_berwal » 26 May 2009 16:00

rkhanna wrote:>>>BEML - IWI is proposing Tavour SMG (9MM) also known as X95<<<

The Tavor can use both the 9mm and the 5.56mm magazines


http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/NR/rdonlyre ... i_sod1.pdf
only the X95 derivative can do that with a special conversion kit

only if BEML wins the tender we get the TOT.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 26 May 2009 16:33

I am confused. OFB already has the tot contract to build the Zitara Carbine. Why does another company need to win it again? It is already in limited production.

ssmitra
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 12:31
Location: Punjab
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ssmitra » 26 May 2009 19:41

rkhanna wrote:
Along with the tavor tot was Offered for the Negev as well. (few hundred Negevs were bought for SF use).. However what i was told sometime back was that the Army is reluctant to change over from the Bren/Mag 7.62mm Capability to the 5.56mm capability. It will involve a paradigm shift in operational doctrine which i guess will take its due time.


Khanna saab could you please elaborate on this operational doctrine around a 20 rd weapon.
Ray sir was there ever any evaluation of other LMGs for the army.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 26 May 2009 19:45

Khanna saab could you please elaborate on this operational doctrine around a 20 rd weapon.
Ray sir was there ever any evaluation of other LMGs for the army.


I think you got me wrong. AFAIK the army really likes the Bren and the FN-MAG because of the Supressive fire it can lay out at a greater distance. While i am not qualified to comment on the amount of Rounds (20 round mag) I however do know that many British Soldiers (serving) still think that the Bren L4 was one of the best GPMGs ever made and the same has been echoed to me by some IA old timers.

As for elaboration i think RayC sir would be best. To either further my argument or negate it.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby HariC » 26 May 2009 21:16

There are obvious advantages that the LMG (either the Bren or the Insas LMG) has over the FN-MAG/GPMG . its much much lighter . the GPMG + belt magazine box is so friggin heavy the IA mounts it on jeeps or tripods in the MMG role.

With the LMG, each soldier in the section carries a magazine each - the load of the gun + ammo is distributed over ten men. I am not sure how you would do that with a belt fed MMG. each soldier carries a 50 round belt?that would be too heavy.

belts have a tendency to accumulate grime and jam the guns. deformed ammo links are another reason for jams. they can also get caught in obstructions. not so with LMGs. the Bren LMG is a very simple gun easy to clear and clean. the talk about cloth magazines etc is nice but these only came into the picture in recent years.

magazine based LMGs teach soldiers to be conservative with ammunition. same reason the Insas does not have auto fire.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gaur » 26 May 2009 22:32

^^ Your post, while interesting, raises some questions. Bren, while lighter than FN MAG, is still "MUCH" heavier than INSAS lmg (and any other modern lmg for that matter). And with weight being such a crucial factor, why does IA still prefer BREN over INSAS lmg? Some posts cite the 5.56mm ammo used by INSAS lmg as the reason. Supposedly, IA will have to change its operational doctrine in order to operate 5.56mm lmgs in large numbers? What is the rationale behind this? Same question comes to mind w.r.t Negev.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby HariC » 26 May 2009 23:25

I havent heard that the army prefers the Bren LMG over the INSAS LMG.

However I can think of a couple of advantages the Bren has over the INSAS. First the barrel change capability. Does the INSAS have it? The OFB site does not mention it ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/13.htm . For the Bren, a spare barrel is carried by the section (one of the ten guys)and this enables them a very high rate of fire. if the barrel gets too hot. you dont ahve to suspend the firing.just change the barrel and keep firing away (Barrel changing is a 5 second job)

The second advantage (now this is my personal guess) is that when firing fom the prone position on the ground, the top feeding mechanism of the Bren allows you to keep a low profile during magazine change or panning the gun fire. The Insas probably needs to be kept a bit high when being operated from the ground because the 30 rd magazine sticks out from below and you need some clearance for it to move it around.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 26 May 2009 23:25

HariCji. do not however that the Brit Paras have started Carrying the Mag in the LMG role in Astan because the regular SA-80LMG just doesnt cut it. The Americans are also overly depended on their Fn-mag (M240s) in the same way in Iraq as the SAWs were found wanting in supressive fire.

For the FN-MAG (AFAIK) the Distribution of Gun and Ammo is between a 2 man team. and for the LMG if every man carries a Magazine and the platoon/unit gets hit and seperated or cannot get to each other wouldnt that cause a problem?

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 26 May 2009 23:28

The Bren also has greater range and supression capability compared to the Insas LMG. And the Bren rarely ever breaks down.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gaur » 26 May 2009 23:51

rkhanna wrote:The Bren also has greater range and supression capability compared to the Insas LMG.

Bren has greater range and supression capability? :-?
According to wiki, Bren has effective range of 550 m and can fire @ 500-520 rounds/min. Insas lmg, according to ofb website, has effective range of 600 m and can fire @ 650 rounds/min. So how come Bren has greater range and supression capability?
rkhanna wrote:And the Bren rarely ever breaks down.

I had heard overheating of barrel, but how do lmgs "break down"?
Last edited by Gaur on 27 May 2009 00:28, edited 1 time in total.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby HariC » 27 May 2009 00:04

rkhanna wrote:HariCji. do not however that the Brit Paras have started Carrying the Mag in the LMG role in Astan because the regular SA-80LMG just doesnt cut it. The Americans are also overly depended on their Fn-mag (M240s) in the same way in Iraq as the SAWs were found wanting in supressive fire.

For the FN-MAG (AFAIK) the Distribution of Gun and Ammo is between a 2 man team. and for the LMG if every man carries a Magazine and the platoon/unit gets hit and seperated or cannot get to each other wouldnt that cause a problem?


well whats good for the British paras may not be good for our common abdul regiments so it is not relevant IMHO

The infantry section of the indian army is divided into 8+2. The 2 man team consists of the LMG guy who carries the LMG, and a support guy who is armed with a 9mm Sten/SMC. Suport guy carries the spare barrel and some more ammo for the LMG.

The rest 8 in the section carry SLRs/INSAS as well as a spare magazine for the LMG. while most of the ammo is with the eight, I dont think it means that the LMG Section (the two man team) carry only two magazines with them. they obviously would have more because they are supposed to be the LMG section. but exactly how many - i ahve no idea.

We see that the sections getting seperated in battle happens only if there is an enemy breakthrough and the holding units have disintegrated. more often than not the sections always operate as part of the platoon (about 35-40 soldiers). if they end up in asituation where they get isolated, their prospects are grim. The benefits of spreading the ammuniton over ten guys has its benefits that outweigh the other model that you propose.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 28 May 2009 21:44

the Bren is a larger calibre than the INSAS LMG, that has its uses - just like AK47 over INSAS in certain roles

Michael Hertlein
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 10 Jun 2009 14:47

Re:

Postby Michael Hertlein » 10 Jun 2009 14:59

Igorr wrote:
ticky wrote:I saw Assam Rifles troops on patrol carrying Insas rifles with a long thin telescopic sight attached, couldn't get any pics though. They would have caned my ass if I tried

Hmm... like this?
ImageImage


you mean this
Image
Image
the guy leaning to the brick wall on pic 1
the 3rd guy on the pic 2
Last edited by Gerard on 11 Jun 2009 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: username changed to conform with forum guidelines

sombhat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 21:59
Location: Kolkata

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby sombhat » 10 Jun 2009 15:17

Wow, great pics. What excersize are these pics from? They look like a single army for a change. I mean same camo, helmets, guns etc.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby krishnan » 10 Jun 2009 16:08

Those soldiers are going through training, those arent telescopic sights

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rkhanna » 10 Jun 2009 20:39

^^^ It is very much a telescopic Sight. Save the pic and zoom into it.

Image

in the above image..Look at the Scope in the top Right Corner (the thinner one).. same Scope seen in these pics.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 10 Jun 2009 21:49

ssmitra,

I am sure that before any weapon is inducted in the army, it is evaluated in all terrains and weather condition.

A 5.56 weapon has less stopping power than a 7.62mm.

Therefore, an LMG, which is a section weapon, in my opinion, should have greater stopping power than that what the remainder section has i.e. 5.56mm INSAS.

The conversion to 5.56 was because it allowed the weapon to be lighter and with less recoil. But more importantly, it was because of the theory that if the enemy was not killed, but incapacitated seriously (i.e. still capable of dying by excessive bleeding), he would have to be evacuated. Obviously, one cannot let a man die!

A howling, bleeding man would be a demoralising event for the attacking troops and evacuating him from the battlefield would mean less people available to pursue the immediate battle (since it will have to be from those who are in the attack or after the attack but before the reorg stage), hence less bayonet strength at the objective end!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 10 Jun 2009 22:02

For the FN-MAG (AFAIK) the Distribution of Gun and Ammo is between a 2 man team. and for the LMG if every man carries a Magazine and the platoon/unit gets hit and seperated or cannot get to each other wouldnt that cause a problem?


No, it does not create any problems.

As soon as the LMG is to come into action, the magazines carried by others are collected and given to the LMG team and the remainder go into the attack thereafter. Good battle drills ensures that there is no time lost or any problems and other issues!

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

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 11 Jun 2009 12:26

ssmitra: In addition to what RayC has explained, 5.56 mm ammo is way lighter than 7.62 mm (12.31 gm vs. 25.47 gm). This means you can carry close to twice the # of 5.56 mm cartridges for the same weight load.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby neerajb » 11 Jun 2009 13:37

RayC wrote:A howling, bleeding man would be a demoralising event for the attacking troops and evacuating him from the battlefield would mean less people available to pursue the immediate battle (since it will have to be from those who are in the attack or after the attack but before the reorg stage), hence less bayonet strength at the objective end!


I am not sure how good this theory is in conventional warfare but it is insufficient for CT operations. One of my relatives in BSF once told me how a terrorist escaped after a TRB from INSAS hit through his thigh. In his own words he said that "had it been an SLR, it would have broken his leg". That's why AK series is still used in J&K.

Cheers....

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12165
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 11 Jun 2009 13:43

I also remember seeing a Discovery channel program which was saying as to why the US went for 5.56 mm for standard infantry, somthing over a distance in semi auto mode it very difficult to control a rifle firing 7.62mm ammo.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 11 Jun 2009 15:00

neerajb wrote:
RayC wrote:A howling, bleeding man would be a demoralising event for the attacking troops and evacuating him from the battlefield would mean less people available to pursue the immediate battle (since it will have to be from those who are in the attack or after the attack but before the reorg stage), hence less bayonet strength at the objective end!


I am not sure how good this theory is in conventional warfare but it is insufficient for CT operations. One of my relatives in BSF once told me how a terrorist escaped after a TRB from INSAS hit through his thigh. In his own words he said that "had it been an SLR, it would have broken his leg". That's why AK series is still used in J&K.

Cheers....


It is good for conventional warfare.

One would like the enemy to have administrative and morale problems. Apart from active manpower having to be spared from the operation in hand and hence giving the other a better combat ratio, when the man is evacuated, his agony will be felt by all who see this wounded person and it sure will be a de-motivating influence. Further, the Govt would have to pay disability pension throughout his lifetime and give him an alternate means of livelihood i.e. a gas agency etc! The 'burden' on the Nation will be more.

If he is dead because of a 7.62 shot, the govt will only have to organise a military funeral and fire a volley and then forget him and his family as they always do!!

This may appear very hurtful, but I am giving the sterilised of emotions view.

In CT or COIN, yes, a 7.62 would have been better (for long range engagement). However, since CT/COIN is at close range, 5.56 also kills! Further, there are also other direct firing weapons that are of the 7.62 genre. It all depends upon the situation and the range.

ssmitra: In addition to what RayC has explained, 5.56 mm ammo is way lighter than 7.62 mm (12.31 gm vs. 25.47 gm). This means you can carry close to twice the # of 5.56 mm cartridges for the same weight load.


That apart, it also helps logistics.

More ammunition can be carried in the A ech.

A 3 ton lorry can carry 1,60,000 rds of 5.56 vs 1,20000 rds of 7.62.

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby viveks » 11 Jun 2009 15:20

Had been to vaishno devi recently...and saw guards with insas in the helipad area. On asking questions about comparing the old SLR rifle and the insas...they guy complained that the insas fires precisely but jams often. He seemed to like the older one better, even though he said it was heavier. I simply think once the experience comes along...people start thinking 'old is gold'.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 11 Jun 2009 15:23

All weapons jam if not kept clean and maintained.

SLR also jams.

If jamming is the criterion, the the AK 47 is the best since it requires very little maintenance!

Cribbing, anyway, is our birthright!

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Sanjay » 11 Jun 2009 17:19

Ray Sahib, the Indian Army has a strong attachment to the Bren LMG it seems. I've seen photos of SF men handling the thing as if it was a rifle. However, isn't part of the purpose of a section level MG to be compatible with rifle ammunition ? Is there any way the Bren can be adapted to take a larger capacity magazine ?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 11 Jun 2009 19:06

Sanjay wrote:Ray Sahib, the Indian Army has a strong attachment to the Bren LMG it seems. I've seen photos of SF men handling the thing as if it was a rifle. However, isn't part of the purpose of a section level MG to be compatible with rifle ammunition ? Is there any way the Bren can be adapted to take a larger capacity magazine ?


I wonder if there is the element of attachment to a weapon.

With a sling it can be fired from the hip position.

It is a section weapon and the ammunition is interchangeable.

It must be remembered the more weight one carries, the less is his efficiency.

The magazine capacity is adequate to meet the requirements.

Vickers machine gun was a far better weapon that the MAG machine gun currently used. Yet, since it was a heavy MG and was water cooled (water froze in high altitudes during winter), it was replaced by the MAG.

Equipment changes as per the tactical requirement of the times.

Vinito
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 18:33

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Vinito » 23 Jun 2009 01:19

Parijat Gaur wrote:This video was posted a while back in one of the BR forums.
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/mar/050309-Defense-Research-Development-Organisation-news-Pune-weapon-systems-mordern-warfare.htm
Does anybody have any further info regarding the multicaliber weapon mentioned in the video?
Also, why are we developing 6.1 caliber ammunition? I have not heard of this caliber before. :-? Is there any particular advantage of this?
The video also mentions that the rifle will be able to use 7.62 ammo. Most of the modern weapons do not use this caliber (only ak-47 and SLR comes to mind). So why this choice? Perhaps to take advantage of commonality with our Ak-47s and SLRs?


Doesnt the latest Russian assault rifle, the AN-94 also use the 7.62 mm?

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 915
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ParGha » 23 Jun 2009 03:51

Vinito wrote:Doesnt the latest Russian assault rifle, the AN-94 also use the 7.62 mm?


Russians have adopted a mix of 5.45x39mm and 7.62x39 mm assault rifles as the individual service rounds. The former is issued to the the vast majority of troops now, but the latter is preferred (and issued) in urban combat and in areas of heavy foliage.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests