Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

[dinesh_kimar]

I can understand what 10" and 14" barrel lengths bring to the field in terms of range and accuracy, but why 14.5". What can a 14.5" barrel do that the 14" cannot ? Or is it just different metallurgy perhaps ?

Apparently the 10" and 14" versions are CQC, which I guess is a shortened carbine for close quarter battle, firing within vehicle and use by secondary troops like artillery, SWAT,etc.

The 10" has full auto capability, while the 14" is only semi auto.( I guess it's analogus to our old Ishapore L1A1-C rifle , with shortened stock used only in BMPs).

The 14.5 " is the full std. version with Full Auto /Semi Auto capability.

[nachiket]

On a technical point since you mentioned multi caliber. IA argues it needs 5.56 for conventional ops and 7.62 for CT ops.

Rs_singh ji, correct me if I'm wrong but from your posts it seems like you have served in the IA. What is your personal opinion on the caliber issue? This indecision and flip-flopping on the caliber has been the most puzzling aspect of this whole fiasco for me.

We are told that 5.56mm is inadequate for CI ops because of a lack of stopping power. You hardly see any soldiers in J&K these days with anything besides an AK. The INSAS is conspicuous by its absence. But our Paras seem to love their Tavors which also use the same ammo. How does that work?

Also, isn't there a big difference in performance of the 7.62x51mm NATO round vs the 7.62x39mm Russian? In the whole conversation about 5.56mm vs 7.62mm this difference gets rarely talked about.

Why didn't the Army decide to standardize on an intermediate round such as the 6.8mm Remington SPC and ask the DRDO to make a rifle in that caliber? The multi-caliber competition had this as a requirement I believe but in addition to 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm. That ended up being too complicated and none of the entrants could satisfy the GSQR. A single intermediate caliber weapon would have been much easier to make and cheaper to buy.

Now we are going to end up with a limited number of SIG-716's and a whole lot of 7.62x39mm AK's while the 5.56mm will be discarded along with the INSAS (but not the Para's Tavors). Does that mean that the whole rationale behind adopting the 5.56mm cartridge in the first place which was borne out of the IPKF's experience in Sri Lanka predominantly is not valid anymore?

[Rs_singh]

On a technical point since you mentioned multi caliber. IA argues it needs 5.56 for conventional ops and 7.62 for CT ops.

We are told that 5.56mm is inadequate for CI ops because of a lack of stopping power. You hardly see any soldiers in J&K these days with anything besides an AK. The INSAS is conspicuous by its absence. But our Paras seem to love their Tavors which also use the same ammo. How does that work?

Also, isn't there a big difference in performance of the 7.62x51mm NATO round vs the 7.62x39mm Russian? In the whole conversation about 5.56mm vs 7.62mm this difference gets rarely talked about.

Why didn't the Army decide to standardize on an intermediate round such as the 6.8mm Remington SPC and ask the DRDO to make a rifle in that caliber? The multi-caliber competition had this as a requirement I believe but in addition to 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm. That ended up being too complicated and none of the entrants could satisfy the GSQR. A single intermediate caliber weapon would have been much easier to make and cheaper to buy.

Now we are going to end up with a limited number of SIG-716's and a whole lot of 7.62x39mm AK's while the 5.56mm will be discarded along with the INSAS (but not the Para's Tavors). Does that mean that the whole rationale behind adopting the 5.56mm cartridge in the first place which was borne out of the IPKF's experience in Sri Lanka predominantly is not valid anymore?

Nachiket,

Please, no sir/ji for me. This is what I was talking about earlier. Replacement of standard issue steel jackets with hollow points overcomes this perceived lack of lethality in 5.56. I’ll even go on to say that each target is on average engaged by a huge number of rounds at which point 1 rd or 2rd of this or that caliber barely matters. USA is contemplating moving to 6.8 for a variety of reasons. Squad assault weapons are 7.62 while personal assault rifles are 5.56. With reduction in weight of weapon and ammo, a standardization is being sought though this remains to be seen and the Army won’t switch anytime soon.
Added later : you mention cartridge variance between Russian and NATO. Answer lies in use case scenario. Squad assault weapons are used for mass engagement at distance with a rapid rate of fire. Shorter rounds used in Russian weapons for single tgt engagement at smaller distances. Dushka for instance also has a similar longer round to the m240b for exactly the same reason.

Hope you got what you were looking for.

[p_ram]

SSS Defence Thread: https://twitter.com/sssdefence/status/1 ... 8360206338

Heard of SOPMOD? Think only developed armies have them? That’s our AK 47 SOPMOD developed for Indian Special Forces.
Flag of India
They know it’s worth it....see the free floating barrel? The best AK’s in the world don’t have them(1/5)

The upgrade features a very rugged dust cover that fits without any external locking mechanism & requires no permanent mods. The tactical buttstock, a new gas tube, quad rail fore end & flash suppressor complete the system. (2/5)

The operator can now mount any optic on the full length rail & a UBGL on the bottom rail. The design lowered recoil significantly & reduced the classic pull up to the right, common to the AK system(3/5)

No SF operator should have to go into battle with anything less than the SSS Def SOPMOD for AK. Existing upgrades, all of them imported, cost as much as a new weapon for delivering far less. We languish for being an India made system. Where is the soul in Atmanirbharbharat (4/5)

We do like the FN Scar but it’s time to reflect on what is optimal for India. 3x the cost for a new system, training afresh & building new tactics don’t come easy. Not to forget, we’ll be importing all the 7.62x51 ammo on this package for a long time to come (5/5)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ebv41DTU0AA ... ame=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ebv4CzBUwAM ... ame=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ebv4CzCVAAE ... ame=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ebv4CzEUYAE ... ame=medium

[nachiket]

Nachiket,

Please, no sir/ji for me. This is what I was talking about earlier. Replacement of standard issue steel jackets with hollow points overcomes this perceived lack of lethality in 5.56. I’ll even go on to say that each target is on average engaged by a huge number of rounds at which point 1 rd or 2rd of this or that caliber barely matters. USA is contemplating moving to 6.8 for a variety of reasons. Squad assault weapons are 7.62 while personal assault rifles are 5.56. With reduction in weight of weapon and ammo, a standardization is being sought though this remains to be seen and the Army won’t switch anytime soon.
Added later : you mention cartridge variance between Russian and NATO. Answer lies in use case scenario. Squad assault weapons are used for mass engagement at distance with a rapid rate of fire. Shorter rounds used in Russian weapons for single tgt engagement at smaller distances. Dushka for instance also has a similar longer round to the m240b for exactly the same reason.

Hope you got what you were looking for.

Thanks. It does clear up some questions I had.

As for the 7.62x51mm issue, I am not questioning the need for support weapons like MMG's needing it but was wondering about the rationale behind the limited purchase of SIG-716 (which will be standard issue rifles for a small part of the infantry) while the majority of the standard issue rifles going forward will be AK's using a different cartridge.

How and where will the SIG-716 be employed? And why would the AK not be sufficient for that role?

[Rs_singh]

Thanks. It does clear up some questions I had.

As for the 7.62x51mm issue, I am not questioning the need for support weapons like MMG's needing it but was wondering about the rationale behind the limited purchase of SIG-716 (which will be standard issue rifles for a small part of the infantry) while the majority of the standard issue rifles going forward will be AK's using a different cartridge.

How and where will the SIG-716 be employed? And why would the AK not be sufficient for that role?

I’m not privy to specifics but I can give you my opinion. Well I have two:

1. Boys will be boys. They need their fancy toys that glitter.
2. 716 is an excellent rifle for infantry use in conventional ops. Army troops are familiar with Ak type in Ct ops. Perhaps the IA has a plan borne out of some contingency which dictated urgent 716 orders for frontline troops facing 7.62 from G3’s in the west. More than likely, it was a political decision. I really can’t think of a reason to have both 716 and AK type.

In hindsight, buying American rifles, Israeli MGs, arab carbines and Russian rifles for “CT” reeks of political compulsions that technical grounds. It will be a nightmare to maintain, train, arm and equip. My views, I’m sure there are far smarter people who see what I don’t.

[ks_sachin]

I’m not privy to specifics but I can give you my opinion. Well I have two:

1. Boys will be boys. They need their fancy toys that glitter.
2. 716 is an excellent rifle for infantry use in conventional ops. Army troops are familiar with Ak type in Ct ops. Perhaps the IA has a plan borne out of some contingency which dictated urgent 716 orders for frontline troops facing 7.62 from G3’s in the west. More than likely, it was a political decision. I really can’t think of a reason to have both 716 and AK type.

In hindsight, buying American rifles, Israeli MGs, arab carbines and Russian rifles for “CT” reeks of political compulsions that technical grounds. It will be a nightmare to maintain, train, arm and equip. My views, I’m sure there are far smarter people who see what I don’t.

Actually I can detect some logic in the Sig and Negev.
The 716 is going to inf not in CI and perhaps better suited for the cross border firefights. Negev also helps here.

Also the AK for CI ops

The Caracal defeats me..

[ks_sachin]

I’m not privy to specifics but I can give you my opinion. Well I have two:

1. Boys will be boys. They need their fancy toys that glitter.
2. 716 is an excellent rifle for infantry use in conventional ops. Army troops are familiar with Ak type in Ct ops. Perhaps the IA has a plan borne out of some contingency which dictated urgent 716 orders for frontline troops facing 7.62 from G3’s in the west. More than likely, it was a political decision. I really can’t think of a reason to have both 716 and AK type.

In hindsight, buying American rifles, Israeli MGs, arab carbines and Russian rifles for “CT” reeks of political compulsions that technical grounds. It will be a nightmare to maintain, train, arm and equip. My views, I’m sure there are far smarter people who see what I don’t.

Our small arms acquisition / design process etc has been a bit like the "The Pentagon Wars"

[mody]

I had asked this earlier and I will ask the question again. If the IA wants AK-203, why can't we manufacture it inhouse, why do we need the russian's for the same.
OFB is making the TAR (Trichy Assault Rifle), which is a copy of the Ak-47 with some enhancements. SSS Defense has shown an improved variant of the AK as well. The variants can be fitted with UGL and have picatany rails on the top for mounting various types of optics etc.
Whatever other improvements that the Ak-203 offers over the basic AK, can also be copied and applied.
Given that we are already making the AK, why pay the Russians license fee for the slightly improved version. We can very well incorporate all the improvements and maybe add some of our own, as shown by SSS.

By involving the Russian's we are again having the circus of price negotiations etc.

Also, whats the word on the OFB/DRDO carbine? The latest version showcased at Defexpo, seemed promising. The caracal carbine costs more then the Sig-716.

[Rs_singh]

Our small arms acquisition / design process etc has been a bit like the "The Pentagon Wars"

At least in that movie, the funds remain in the country. The issue is that it’s not restricted to small arms. It permeates everywhere. From grenades to AAMs to subs. I don’t think there is one weapon producer we don’t import something from. Hate to say it but reminds of the Netflix show “sabka number aayega”

[RajaRudra]

<deleted by mod, user warned and banned>

[ramana]

Thakur, Can the INSAS rifle handle the NATO 5.56 round?

[Aditya_V]

https://ofb.gov.in/product/products/pro ... 20M%20193.

5.56MM INSAS 1C RIFLE

Compatible with NATO standard ammunition 5.56 x 45 mm SS 109, M 193.

[ramana]

You rock!!!

[Thakur_B]

Thakur, Can the INSAS rifle handle the NATO 5.56 round?

Yes, we fought Kargil war mostly with Ss109 equivalent.

The 5.56 Insas and 5.56 NATO are mostly similar with exactly the same case dimensions. In 5.56 Insas, the bullet sits farther up case neck leading to some 2.7 mm additional length.

[ks_sachin]

Thakur, Can the INSAS rifle handle the NATO 5.56 round?

Yes, we fought Kargil war mostly with Ss109 equivalent.

The 5.56 Insas and 5.56 NATO are mostly similar with exactly the same case dimensions. In 5.56 Insas, the bullet sits farther up case neck leading to some 2.7 mm additional length.

Was that for the increased effective range?

[Pratyush]

Guys,

What is the opinion of within the IA infantry regarding the 6.8 mm round and it various attempted implementations by Khanland. Are they looking at it? Or they are confident that the existing round namely 5.56 s sufficient for present and near future requirements.

The reason why I am asking this question, is because during the late 80s NATO was concerned with the availability of body armor with the Red Army and were working on different infantry weapons to deal with it. The evaporation of the Red Army threat resulted in a scaling back of those efforts.

Now that the US army is again looking forward to a major power fight, they are again looking at a new round.

In our case we re looking at a fairy complex tactical situation as well. So is the Indian army looking at something similar??

[ramana]

Who knows.? It would be speculative as 6.8mm was not tried in India.
No 5.56 is not adequate hence the switch to 7.62x51 and 7.62xx39 for RR.
While IA was trying to match US doctrine with the switch both the principal challengers Pakistan (G3) and China (AK-47 family) did not switch to the lower caliber.

I wonder who were those responsible in IA for selecting the 5.56mm caliber?

[ramana]

The 5.56 Insas and 5.56 NATO are mostly similar with exactly the same case dimensions. In 5.56 Insas, the bullet sits farther up case neck leading to some 2.7 mm additional length.

Some convoluted thinking that INSAS bullet won't be compatible with the NATO 5.56mm rifles, but INSAS will be compatible with NATO rounds.

[ParGha]

No 5.56 is not adequate hence the switch to 7.62x51 and 7.62xx39 for RR. While IA was trying to match US doctrine with the switch both the principal challengers Pakistan (G3) and China (AK-47 family) did not switch to the lower caliber. I wonder who were those responsible in IA for selecting the 5.56mm caliber?

ramana, the Chinese DID switch to 5.8x43mm rounds. And a light round is not just the US doctrine and Chinese aping, but the trend was also adopted by the Soviets who chose 5.45x39mm rounds in the AK-74 and beyond.

There are excellent doctrinal reasons for choosing a light, medium-range round for a conventional battle. 80%+ of casualties in a combined-arms battle are caused by artillery; a ratio which goes up if you add crew-served weapons like MMGs and AGLs. Plus it is also a lot easier to train new recruits on a fast and flat shooting round with low recoil (vs a 7.62x39mm).

The Rashtriya Rifles is a paramilitary force, and its requirements cannot be generalized to the Army. The Coast Guard has a requirement for <1m shallow-draft patrol boats, but nobody goes around saying that all Navy ships should have a <1m draft.

[nachiket]

The Rashtriya Rifles is a paramilitary force, and its requirements cannot be generalized to the Army. The Coast Guard has a requirement for <1m shallow-draft patrol boats, but nobody goes around saying that all Navy ships should have a <1m draft.

How can RR be classified as a paramilitary force? A COIN force...yes. But paramilitary? They are under the MoD and their training and composition is entirely IA. Their battalions were raised by every IA regiment. That classification of RR as paramilitary was only on paper for legal reasons I think. I don't see a reason why they can't be used as regular IA foot infantry in a hot war (if necessary) especially in the J&K-PoK area.

Also, ramana saar, 7.62x39mm is not just for RR. The bulk of the rifles in the IA will be AK-203's assuming that deal goes through. The SIG numbers are limited to 76000. How many Inf divisions can those equip? 3? 4?

[Anoop]

I don't see a reason why they can't be used as regular IA foot infantry in a hot war (if necessary) especially in the J&K-PoK area

I believe it has already been employed that way in Kargil '99. 8 Mtn Div was deployed in COIN duties with elements in RR, which were then redeployed for its regular tasks when war broke out.

Armor and artillery units mothball their primary equipment during their stint in RR. I wonder whether infantry battalions do the same i.e. switch from their current INSAS to AK-47? And if so, if they were to reorient towards regular infantry role, will they switch over to INSAS?

[nachiket]

Armor and artillery units mothball their primary equipment during their stint in RR. I wonder whether infantry battalions do the same i.e. switch from their current INSAS to AK-47? And if so, if they were to reorient towards regular infantry role, will they switch over to INSAS?

I guess if everyone is using an AK going forward, they won't have to.

I wonder why the IA never bought a full-auto version of the INSAS with 30 rd magazines and folding stock for COIN operations. Folding stock version of regular INSAS was already available, and converting it to full-auto would be trivial for OFB. 30 rd mags were already being made for the LMG.

[Rs_singh]

Nachiket and Anoop,

RR is IA. None of this paramilitary business and never was categorized as such. There are only two paramil orgs, CRPF and Assam Rifles. As for switching roles between conventional ops and CT ops, yes, theoretically this is possible and was done in Kargil. However. One outcome of the KRC was the identification of this very switch as a big mistake our planners made. In theory it’s ok to switch roles, however, in reality, and in hindsight, it’s far difficult to do so for a variety of reasons.

As for primary infantry rifle , yes, if the mainstay becomes the AK type, then no switch will be required. However, an LMG type with 30rd is simply not feasible for infantry ops. You need belt feeder or far larger magazine capacity. 75-100rd between loads would be ideal. OFB struggles to produce a standard rifle which can barely sustain single shot , say nothing of auto. Though, I’m not seeing the need for auto mode in inf ops. Folding stock is available and in production, used by CISF mostly.

[nachiket]

As for primary infantry rifle , yes, if the mainstay becomes the AK type, then no switch will be required. However, an LMG type with 30rd is simply not feasible for infantry ops. You need belt feeder or far larger magazine capacity. 75-100rd between loads would be ideal.

Our primary LMG is still the Bren right? Supplemented by the INSAS LMG. IA somehow did not feel the need for belt fed or (drum mag fed) section level LMG. They are buying more Negev's now, so that might be changing.

OFB struggles to produce a standard rifle which can barely sustain single shot , say nothing of auto. Though, I’m not seeing the need for auto mode in inf ops. Folding stock is available and in production, used by CISF mostly.

Yes full-auto is of little use in regular inf ops. But I've heard it said that the AK's full-auto mode comes in useful in COIN ops and the lack of it on the INSAS is a problem. However, implementing a full-auto mode in a select-fire rifle will be easier than the 3-round burst mode in the INSAS.

As for OFB, how did they make full auto Bren's and FN-MAGs till now? Why was their build quality for the INSAS so much worse than that for the L1A1 SLR it replaced? How are they going to manufacture the AK-203's if they can't even make a single shot rifle? When it comes to OFB there are always more questions than answers.

[ks_sachin]

The Rashtriya Rifles is a paramilitary force, and its requirements cannot be generalized to the Army. The Coast Guard has a requirement for <1m shallow-draft patrol boats, but nobody goes around saying that all Navy ships should have a <1m draft.

How can RR be classified as a paramilitary force? A COIN force...yes. But paramilitary? They are under the MoD and their training and composition is entirely IA. Their battalions were raised by every IA regiment. That classification of RR as paramilitary was only on paper for legal reasons I think. I don't see a reason why they can't be used as regular IA foot infantry in a hot war (if necessary) especially in the J&K-PoK area.

Also, ramana saar, 7.62x39mm is not just for RR. The bulk of the rifles in the IA will be AK-203's assuming that deal goes through. The SIG numbers are limited to 76000. How many Inf divisions can those equip? 3? 4?

Nachiket what ParGha means is that the ToE of a RR bn is specific to a COIN role which is more in keeping with the para mil forces. The structure of the RR bn too is different.
Yes they can be used as an Inf Bn in a pinch but an induction into RR has a process and likewise induction our of RR perhaps has a process of unlearning and relearning some of the Inf Combat tactics - at least that was the case..

[ks_sachin]

As for primary infantry rifle , yes, if the mainstay becomes the AK type, then no switch will be required. However, an LMG type with 30rd is simply not feasible for infantry ops. You need belt feeder or far larger magazine capacity. 75-100rd between loads would be ideal.

Our primary LMG is still the Bren right? Supplemented by the INSAS LMG. IA somehow did not feel the need for belt fed or (drum mag fed) section level LMG. They are buying more Negev's now, so that might be changing.

OFB struggles to produce a standard rifle which can barely sustain single shot , say nothing of auto. Though, I’m not seeing the need for auto mode in inf ops. Folding stock is available and in production, used by CISF mostly.

Yes full-auto is of little use in regular inf ops. But I've heard it said that the AK's full-auto mode comes in useful in COIN ops and the lack of it on the INSAS is a problem. However, implementing a full-auto mode in a select-fire rifle will be easier than the 3-round burst mode in the INSAS.

As for OFB, how did they make full auto Bren's and FN-MAGs till now? Why was their build quality for the INSAS so much worse than that for the L1A1 SLR it replaced? How are they going to manufacture the AK-203's if they can't even make a single shot rifle? When it comes to OFB there are always more questions than answers.

The Negev allows the flexibility of belt as well as magazine feed.

[nachiket]

The Negev allows the flexibility of belt as well as magazine feed.

I believe we are buying the NG-7 version chambered for 7.62x51mm. That model does not accept a box magazine. Only a drum magazine or ammo belt is available.

[ks_sachin]

The Negev allows the flexibility of belt as well as magazine feed.

I believe we are buying the NG-7 version chambered for 7.62x51mm. That model does not accept a box magazine. Only a drum magazine or ammo belt is available.

I stand corrected.

[Rs_singh]

The Negev allows the flexibility of belt as well as magazine feed.

I believe we are buying the NG-7 version chambered for 7.62x51mm. That model does not accept a box magazine. Only a drum magazine or ammo belt is available.

Just a point on the whole squad support weapons. Kargil experience showed that our LMGs were outgunned and outranged by ww2 mg34s. More so, EN had a higher rate of fire and could sustain suppr fire far longer than us. IA always wanted a better MG, but when you’re struggling for combat boots and LBVs you don’t ask for fancy MGs.

CT ops in the valley are a different matter. Bren is good enough, albeit I doubt the engagement ranges and target profile would make a damned difference if engaged with an MG or with an AK type.

[Rs_singh]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but our long range engagement suffers from acute shortages of both rifles and training. I’m now referring solely to sniper and counter sniper W&T for everyone to look at this holistically. We bought dragunovs in bulk but never setup dedicated schools for sniper trg, though we inherited the same at CIJWS and MHOW. SF runs courses at variety of schools focused on operators. Regular infantry has shorter courses run at btn level. Nothing dedicated, no standardization.

[ks_sachin]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but our long range engagement suffers from acute shortages of both rifles and training. I’m now referring solely to sniper and counter sniper W&T for everyone to look at this holistically. We bought dragunovs in bulk but never setup dedicated schools for sniper trg, though we inherited the same at CIJWS and MHOW. SF runs courses at variety of schools focused on operators. Regular infantry has shorter courses run at btn level. Nothing dedicated, no standardization.

Indeed.

When you say variety of schools courses by SF what do you mean?

[Rs_singh]

Ks_sachin,

I meant to say, SF operators have dedicated trg courses at a variety of schools open to reg inf but reg inf does not participate in those courses, nor are they available for reg inf.

[nachiket]

Rs_singh, since you have served, maybe you can answer this. Did the 3 round burst mode on the INSAS actually work as expected reliably? Also was it actually useful, since it was specifically demanded by the IA in the GSQR IIRC?

Secondly, why does the IA still stick with 20 rd mags for the INSAS to this day? We switched from higher caliber SLR to the smaller, lighter INSAS with lighter ammo. One of the advantages that you get with that is the ability to carry more ammo per soldier for the same weight but our boys never got that advantage. I remember a soldier complaining after Kargil that their mags used to be empty in 6 bursts while they were under a hail of fire from belt fed MG's from the bunkers.

[nachiket]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but our long range engagement suffers from acute shortages of both rifles and training. I’m now referring solely to sniper and counter sniper W&T for everyone to look at this holistically. We bought dragunovs in bulk but never setup dedicated schools for sniper trg, though we inherited the same at CIJWS and MHOW. SF runs courses at variety of schools focused on operators. Regular infantry has shorter courses run at btn level. Nothing dedicated, no standardization.

The new acquisitions for Sniper rifles were supposed to help remedy this problem. But the last update was that the numbers were reduced from 5700 to only 1800 because of budgetary restrictions and the manufacturers failing to satisfy the ToT clause in the original tender.

[Rs_singh]

Rs_singh, since you have served, maybe you can answer this. Did the 3 round burst mode on the INSAS actually work as expected reliably? Also was it actually useful, since it was specifically demanded by the IA in the GSQR IIRC?

Secondly, why does the IA still stick with 20 rd mags for the INSAS to this day? We switched from higher caliber SLR to the smaller, lighter INSAS with lighter ammo. One of the advantages that you get with that is the ability to carry more ammo per soldier for the same weight but our boys never got that advantage. I remember a soldier complaining after Kargil that their mags used to be empty in 6 bursts while they were under a hail of fire from belt fed MG's from the bunkers.

Nachiket,

I’ve never seen burst fire ever used operationally, ever. It’s good for target practice and draws from an old doctrine of engaging single tgt with 3rd each. INSAS copied this over from M16s and as you see now, the M4 in service today does not have burst fire, replacing with full auto.
2. Metallurgy. Barrel and magazine, both.
3. Kargil - yes. True of the Bren too, as I said above, not just insas.

[Rs_singh]

On sniper rifles, the number you mention are way too less for an army of a 1.1M. I believe even those are going to CT ops specifically not regular combat units. There is a haphazard approach to buying everything in this military. We buy 100 dragunov, 200 lapuas, 50 m50s, 20 HK6, 10 AMR, you get the idea. Different rounds. Different training, different tactics, same OG man. As you can surmise, no one wants to miss the gravy train.

[ks_sachin]

Ks_sachin,

I meant to say, SF operators have dedicated trg courses at a variety of schools open to reg inf but reg inf does not participate in those courses, nor are they available for reg inf.

Your statement appears to be self contradictory —— open to reg inf but not available to reg inf...

[ParGha]

nachiket, the one advantage of a 20-round magazine is that you have a lower-profile in the prone position on flat ground / shooting downwards. Ideally you have a mix of 20- and 30-round magazines. sachin summarized what I meant about the RR correctly.

[Rs_singh]

Ks_Sachin, no, there is a nuance. HAWS is open to reg inf, but not all courses at HAWS are open to reg inf. Hope this helps.

Pargha, I am not so sure about lower profile. The thickness of LBV+BPJ in addition to the curve of your (my) ass far exceeds the 50mm extra thickness bought on by the mag with 10 extra rds. far less if the mag is curved.