Tech.Info.2/INSAS System

[advitya]

ramen<P>I don't understand why a 3-round brust should be a handicap even at close range. Anyone who has ever used a semi or an automaic will appreciate that limiting the number of bursts gives the user a greater control over his instrument. The 3-round burst is the result of our experiences in Sri Lanka.

[advitya]

ramen<P>I don't understand why a 3-round brust should be a handicap even at close range. Anyone who has ever used a semi or an automaic will appreciate that limiting the number of bursts gives the user a greater control over his instrument. The 3-round burst is the result of our experiences in Sri Lanka.

[Shirish]

Advitya: Right on, baby!<BR>I tried to say the same on an earlier post !<P>SChaterjee: On the barrel length, normally longer barrel = greater accuracy. But, there's some friction/force formula for that too. Because, after a certain length, the rifling inside the barrel reduces the muzzle velocity. So, it all kinda goes back to what your operational requirements are.

[Rupak]

Shirish and Advitya:<P>I agree with your assesments of the 3-round INSAS. A product of our SL experience.<P>Ramen:<P>Let me see if I can address the issue of the lack of automatic weapons with the Army. What the Indian Army seems to be complaining is that troops engaged in Kargil lack their authorised strength of LMG/UMGs at the platoon, section and company levels. I understand that they also have complaints about assault rifles, but that has to do with the bulk of the Ishapore and the the non-availabilty of the INSAS (or equivalent).<P>INSAS production didn't really get off the ground until last year so there is clearly a shortage of this items. It seems that the Strike Corps have been given priority in re-equipping and have been mainatined at high levels of preparedness.<P>It seems to me that the bulk of the troops engaged in Kargil are either reserve formations or "ex"COIN units which do not have the authroised complements of heavy and meduim weapons. It seems to me that the Army (with good reason) have decided not to engage any units from the strike corps corps (and support units) in the Kargil operations. What I am trying to say is that the volume of fire (or lack thereof) the Commander is complaining about has to do shortages of LMGs and UMGs, and not with the INSAS. <P><p>[This message has been edited by rupak (edited 28-06-99).]

[Sukumar]

Schatterjee, to answer your question, 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm refers to the diameter of the bullet. This in turn translates into the kinetic energy of the round as KE = 0.5 x m x v2 (v squared), where m = mass of bullet and v = muzzle velocity. Obviously a heavier round is more stable and has more killing power.<P>However, a smaller dia round like the 5.56 mm means that a soldier can carry more ammo, the guns can be lighter and have less recoil. The 5.56 mm round is less aerodynamically stable than the 7.62 which somewhat limits its killing range. However, the focus on the modern battlefield is more to severely injure the enemy soldier and incapacitate him, rather than necessarily kill him. An injured soldier is also a burden who needs to be taken care of - tying up more resources (medevac, medicines, medical staff, hospitals...... )<P>Interestingly, the Russian 5.45 mm round used with the AK-74 is more lethal because it is unstable. Its nose has a small hollow which causes the round to skew (on impact) inside the target tearing more muscle and bone. The Afgahn mujahideen were the first to discover the horrific effects of the 5.45 mm round. As an aside, Kalashnikov the father of the AK series was against the introduction of this round.<P>On the 3 round question:<P>1. In the Vietnam war it was estimated that US infantry used 75-100,000 rounds for every Vietnamese soldier killed. If aviation ammo expenditure is included the figure was ~ 1 million rounds per Vietnamese soldier killed.<P>2. In the heat of battle, soldiers tend to loose off ammo at any and everything. All modern assault rifles feature a 3 round burst capability including the M-16A2, modern versions of the AK-74, the H & K MP-5, and the INSAS.<P>3. The 3 round burst was found to be the most optimum number based on battle experience. It is not a limiting capability and all it means is a little more training for the infantry man.<P>4. The INSAS LMG and paratrooper carbine retain full auto capability.<P>5. I have fired a variety of automatic weapons including the HK MP-5, Sten, Uzi, Thompson. After the 2nd or third round, the barrel is swinging wildly spraying rounds all over the place. In shooting terms, this is called the "spread". A 3 round burst capability will allow our soldiers to put metal on target without wasting ammo.<P>6. What is needed is more firepower for the infantryman. This means adding grenade launchers to atleast some of the rifles in a platoon, a light anti-tank weapon (like Milan) for the weapons section of a platoon, night vision goggles, better mobile radios, and light mortars.<P>I'd love to get my hands on an INSAS and pepper some targets. Know how I can get one? <P>PS: anybody into shooting who'd like to exchange info, feel free to email me.

[Shirish]

someone correct me if I'm wrong here:<P>The difference between a Indian platoon and a Paki platoon is that the IA uses one LMG per platton ( old Raj style) while the Pakis use 2 LMGs per platoon ( US style).<BR>Soldiers say that this makes a difference in fire power, at close quarters. <BR>

[Badar]

Hi,<P>I'd love to get my hands on an INSAS and pepper some targets. Know how I can get one?<P>R Sukumar, contact your friendly neighbouthood ISI agent <P>And as your statistics point out, a rifle to an infantry man in not a precision weapon, but an area weapon. Rifel rounds are generally loosened off in the direction of the enemy and hardly aimed, except perhaps when you are are dug in and pliking troops advancing in sparse cover or in close combat. <BR>Being a area weapon implies a high and sustained rate of fire is preferable at the cost of general accuracy. The only caveat is it must not be too high or the logistic load will be exorbitant.<P>Bullet wounds are the lowest cause of fatalities in most battles. The rifel fire mostly serves to encourage the infantry, soldiers are comforted by the noises the thought they are doing something, and serves to keep the enemys head down. The vast majority of casualties come from machine gun fire, sniper rounds, mortars, artellary and air attacks.<P>Do a simple experiment. Look out the window and at a man say two or three blocks away. Now imagine he is lying down on the ground. Now aim an imaginary rifel or pen (or a real one if the ISI agent is helpful) at him. Do you realise how difficult it is to hit him. Now think of the heat, confusion, fear and stress of battle.<P> <p>[This message has been edited by Badar (edited 28-06-99).]

[Sukumar]

Badar, the infantry man's rifle is NOT an area weapon. All infantry men are trained to aim and shoot and make every shot count. A carbine or submachine gun on the other hand is designed to "spray" bullets and is an area weapon. A 3 round burst provides enough spread to be lethal without being a waste.<P>Ramen, the AK-74's 5.45 mm round has a very small hole drilled into its nose. This is what provides the instability on entry. There are various kinds of bullets which can generically be called "Dum-Dum" bullets. Machining grooves or making cuts in the nose of a bullet causes it to break and splay open on impact. This causes a huge and very lethal wound. In general these rounds are banned by the Geneva convention. The 5.45 is not one of those. It does not splinter or splay.<P>Another lethal mod is drilling a small hole in the nose of a bullet, filling it with a drop of mercury and sealing it again with soft lead. When the bullet strikes, the inertia of the mercury droplet makes it slam forward providing an additional punch. The "Jackal" uses it in the famous book, the "Day of the Jackal".<P>PS: The dum-dum bullets were so called because they were first manufactured at the Dum Dum arsenal near Calcutta.

[Tim]

Not being an expert in small arms, please excuse my naivety, but my understanding is that a 3-round burst capability is highly desireable and an almost negligible cost in terms of the weapon itself.<P>I'm also surprised to see that the LMG version does not have a barrel that can be quickly changed. With no 3-round burst capability (and therefore, firing full auto when you fire), won't the barrel heat up rather quickly? Without the abillity to change it quickly, that may suggest that the LMG version won't be as effective as others available on the market.<P>IIRC from reports in the mid090s, one of the major causes for delays in the INSAS program was the inisistence on a different cartridge from NATO/WP standard. Sounds like that remains a problem. <P>INSAS is another case where alternatives were available for licensed production, but the decision was made to build it at home to very complex and sophisticated specifications. As a result of delays, India had to import lots of AKs in the early 1990s. It's a recurring problem that eventually will have to be dealt with.<P>Tim

[Badar]

Badar, the infantry man's rifle is NOT an area weapon. All infantry men are trained to aim and shoot and make every shot count. A carbine or submachine gun on the other hand is designed to "spray" bullets and is an area weapon. A 3 round burst provides enough spread to be lethal without being a waste.<P>Oh, they are trained all right, I am not arguing that. What I am saying is that in war thats not how it happens. The soldiers are so busy taking cover, shaken by enemy mortar and artillary, blinded by smoke and dust of battle field, under the strain and fatigue of battle, and imagining every odd rock and shrub looking like a camoflaged enemy soldier, that all they can do is poke out their rifels and fire in the general direction of enemy flashes, and hope that if you shoot enough of them, something will connect.<P>A study was made of the of the US 101st screaming eagles airborne divisions battles in normandy where they were paradropped, and black forest where they were used as regular infantry. Guess what they concluded - Soldiers tend to use rifels like area weapons. Remember that the 101 was as elite infantry unit. Its performance was tanken as the high water mark for the entire US army. German operational analysis to determine the mix of MP38's in a platoon also came to the same conclusion. <P>Perhaps there is someone here who has first hand experiance of an infanty firefight. Maybe they can talk about their own experainces.<P>

[ramana]

Salman, thanks for the info. from Janes.<BR>The long barrel is for accuracy using the local round. INSAS can fire both NATO std and the local round. The delays were due to mfg., insistence of local round being perfect etc. The approach now appears to be induct INSAS w/ NATO round while production gears up for the local round. <BR>The Kargil operations should provide feedback on INSAS as pix showing soldiers carrying them can be seen in HT recently. The replaceble barrel issue will probably settled after the lessons learned exercise is over.<BR>The problem in India is they always forget the best is enemy of the good.

[Johann]

The 5.45x39 cartrige used in the AK-74 uses a steel solid slug, it is NOT a soft nosed or hollow pointed round. It is designed to tumble rather than penetrate, to maximise tissue damage. It violates the spirit rather than the letter of the Geneva Convention. NATO ammunition is full metal jacket, designed to punch clean holes right through you. Unfortunately military ammunition is cheap and of low standards (comparedto hunting ammo) so often they fragment in such a way that beyond the lacerations they can also contaminate the wound if not cleaned out.<P> Infantry today has better training and better suited weapons than the chaps in WWII. My experience has been that within 300m every trained infantryman with a working rifle is lethal weapon. Beyond that out to 500-700m depending on the rifle(700 for the FN FAL/SLR), effectiveness decreases until it becomes harassing fire. A 15 year old kid with his grandad's rusty old Enfield will kill you just as dead as the latest and greatest assault rifle if he's careful and you're not. I will post more on this thread later.<P> The lack of provision for a bayonet is surprising, and something the infantryman will regret. <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 28-06-99).]

[Sukumar]

Johann, there is a lug on the lower part of the barrel of the INSAS rifle to mount a bayonet. <P>Also I never said that the 5.45 mm round was a hollow point or soft nosed. Read my post carefully. The 5.45 round has a small groove drilled into its nose. This creates an air pocket that makes it aerodynamically unstable and tumble. This is the reason for the 5.45 mm rounds killing power. <P>Check out the Kalashnikov web page. They have a discussion board there.<P>http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/board4/

[Johann]

Sukumar, my comment was meant for Ramen Das. I have had some experience with Soviet weapons. <P> Ah, I checked the pictures, I see the lug now. Thank you. <P> S Sharma, the LMG is meant for the sustainable fire role, with appropriate sights, barrel and the bipod. The individual weapon is not optimised for it. Accuracy will go to hell, and if the enemy knows he doesn't have worry as much about being hit, he's going to act accordingly. If there is a shortage of LMG's and the intention is to supplement them with full auto versions, then they should only be issued to appropriately trained soldiers. It's not quite as simple as pointing and pulling the trigger. <P>All modern assault rifles are semi-auto. Semi auto only means that you don't have to manually load the next round into the chamber after your last shot. Rifles such as the M-16A2 can be toggled between safety, semi-auto and burst, depending on the situation. In urban or jungle combat where most situations are contact through ambushes or patrols bumping into each other, 3-round bursts are extremely important in providing firepower in volume.<p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 28-06-99).]

[Johann]

up..., before this this thread is pruned.

[Johann]

As pointed out earlier the term 'carbine' is somewhat generic, much like 'sports car' or 'lorry'. In general it refers to a version of a regular assult rifle that is shorter (overall, and in barell length) and lighter, and withfeatures such as folding tubular frame buttplates (or none at all). Earlier there was a tendency to compensate for the llighter wepon by chambering the carbine version for a less powerful round. This practice has generally been abandoned because of (a)the unecessary logistical problems, (b)inadequate stopping power and (c) the additional time and money it would take to redign the weapon for a different calibre.<P> Carbines are basically meant to fit a niche between sidearms and assault rifles for support personnel (e.g. tankers, transport and logistics, signals, sailors, etc.) with space limitations and certain special forces whose primary mission is short range direct action. Submachine guns are an option but would require different ammo(typically 9mm), training and handling and would be be ineffective at distances, as well as being less effective.<P><BR> Carbines are less accurate, have shorter effective ranges and less stopping power than the regular weapons because of the compromises made in the interest of weight and length. WWII M-1 carbine users often reported that it took several shots to stop a man. Compare this to the M-1, firing the same round which could easily bring a man down at 1000m. I'm glad I was never stuck in a jam with one. <P> From what I've heard, the delays with the INSAS carbine stem from the difficulty in handling the increase in recoil and the difficulty of maintaing balance with the now significantly lighter weapon. Considering that that the Russians produced the AK shorty version of the Ak-74, I would suspect the difficulty is in adapting the FN-FAL's gas regulation system. this was a year or two ago, so progress may have been made by now.

[Johann]

"I agree that the full auto option should be available.<P>i think the army based it on the fact that in Sri Lanka, men under stress fired off entire clips (just like the Americans in Vietnam)."<P>The British Army like the Indian Army chose the SLR (or FN FAL)in the '60's as a replacement for the old Enfield. Both armies chose to have full auto disabled. From 1987 onwards, the SA-80 was introduced, and this was the weapon I trained with and came to love. <P> It can be toggled between 'R'(repetition) and 'A' (automatic). The discipline and skill required for the effective use of automatic weapons fire. Combat infantry training lasts 19 weeks, and the first six weeks concentrate on the SA-80 especially. You train how to accurately fire your weapon while kneeling, sitting, squatting or standing at different ranges. Total familiarity with the weapon is essential. By the end of my training I could literally field strip and reassemble my weapon blindfolded.<P> There are four types of fire used in battle, <P>1. Deliberate fire, a steady rate of fire, not more than 10 rounds per minute. It's generally used after a fire fight has been won in order to prevent the enemy from returning aimed fire, observing us or moving their positions.<P>2. Snap shooting; intermittent opportunistic firing at an enemy that exposes himself for only short periods.<P>3. Rapid Fire; this is used to win a firefight or when your position is being assaulted. With practice you can fire up to 20 aimed shots a minute at different targets.<P>4. Automatic Fire; this is used only in close quarter battle, in the last stages of an assault, while clearing bunkers, trenches, woods or house clearing, or when repelling massed attacks. Even then we were trained to empasise control, because we could not count on being resupplied anytime soon. <P>Under operational conditions, the most used kind of fire is snap shooting at short ranges against an enemy moving quickly from cover to cover, showing himself for the shortest possible time. We zeroed our sights for 400m. <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 03-07-99).]

[rupak@bharat-rakshak.com]

Johann,<P>Very illuminating post. I was under the impression that the BA used the auto version of the FN FAL since it was being manufactured in GB. Could be wrong?<P>Do you have experience with any other infantry rifle? Could you offer any comparisons on what it is like to use a military weapon vs a hunting rifle at a few hundred meters (single shot?<P>Thanks<P>Salman

[Johann]

The British, Canadian, Dutch and Indian armies all chose to disable full-auto on their FN FALs. There were many other small local differences between national models. The FN FAL is not a terribly accurate or controllable weapon when firing on automatic. The H&K G3/G41 which is otherwise identical in performance does somewhat better in that respect while being a bit lighter and shorter. The FN FAL is a rather awkward weapon in terms of it's length (the British version was the longest)and weight which is a bit of a bother if you are charging through a door frame or on a yomp.<P> I am morally and ethically opposed to hunting as a form of recreation, so my comments on hunting rifles are basically from experience on the rifle range and common knowledge. Hunting weapons are generally larger calibres (.308/7.62mm) onwards, but even comparable calibres tend to use heavier grain cartriges so they have quite a bit more kick. you fire ten rounds from a .30-06 and the next morning sure enough you will find a bruise on your shoulder from the buttplate recoil. Some of the standard rifle rounds are 270, .30-06, 7mm Remington. Magnum, .300 Winchester Mag., .338 Win. Mag. The round you choose depends on the size of the game you're going after. If for example, you make the mistake of going after a grizzly or polar bear with an M-16(.223) you will probably not live to regret it. <P> Since these weapons are also generally bolt operated, the emphasis is on aim; you only get a couple of shots at most if you're hunting game, and if you're a marksman, you want a nice tight grouping. With the more powerful round accuracy improves dramatically increasing effective range and reducing the compensation required for ballistics and wind. In addition your hunting rifle will probably have a nice scope, say a 10x40. <P> As for other rifles, the AK-47 and 74 are dependable, cheap and quite effective. Compared to the M16 A2 and SA-80, they fall a little bit short. They don't balance as well and the AK-47's accuracy is measurably less both in semi and full auto fire with shorter effective ranges. However in battle that difference isn't going to be very meaningful, especially if it's in the hands of a well trained soldier. The AK-74 though has a very well designed muzzle break which makes accurate automatic fire quite easy, though at the cost of a very conspicuous muzzle flash. <P>I consider the SA-80 superior (I'm a bit biased though I will admit)for a number of reasons; it's just as reliable, tough and easy to maintain, and it has a much better flash supressor and superior optical sights. It is also among the most inherently accurate serial produced assault rifles ever, along with the new H&K Gewehr 50 and possibly the AUG Steyr. It's weight at 5kg is acceptable, and combined with it's significantly shorter bullpup design give a great natural balance and make it easier to carry and use in confined spaces such as houses. There is also the terrific SUSAT 3.7x optical sights they are equipped with which are great for deliberate fire and even snap shooting. Set on'R' with it's inherent accuracy and the sights it can be something of a sniper weapon. It also has a lovely sling system that allows several different ways to carry it including across the chest with one hand, only requiring the snap of a quick release buckle to bring it to the ready. <P> The M-16 has also been in service in the British Army since the Malayan emergency. Back then it was the best jungle fighting weapon available; it was extremely light, fairly compact and unlike the SLR could fire on auto. The SAS still favours it over the SA-80 on account of it's lightness, historical inertia (mostly because of the SA-80's initial teething problems) ,the attraction of the underslung M203 40mm grenade launcher for extra punch and it's deniability as a non British-specific weapon. I like the M-16, it's a good solid weapon, accurate and reliable but it's not as dependable as some of the other weapons available because of it's greater mechnical complexity and it's harder to maintain on the field.<P> From what I've heard of all the AK variants, the Israeli Galil and the S.African R4 (a tougher version of the Galil) really stand out. They are built to a better quality, and have better accuracy as well as little additions such as tritium coatings on the iron sights to help in low light situations (also found on some AK's) as well a bottle opener <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 07-07-99).]

[Johann]

A yomp is a nice bracing walk out in the open. In the light infantry it means a nice bracing between anywhere from 2 to 12 miles walk out in the open with boots and in full kit with a 50lbs in pack, possibly cross country at up to 3mph. The idea is not to turn you into a marathon runner;The purpose of physical conditioning is to develop combat stamina. You have to be able to yomp to your objective and then fight to take it. <P><BR>The British soldiers, especially the Marines during the Falklands conflict, did a remarkable job of carrying heavy loads on their backs over long distances and during adverse weather conditions. A good example of this physical endurance was the 42 Commando of the Royal Marines. The Commandos landed at San Carlos carrying approximately 120-145 pounds of equipment per man. A typical load consisted of two mortar rounds (26 lbs.), personal weapon and ammunition (50 lbs.), 2 water bottles, food for 48 hours, sleeping bag, shelter, spare clothing and other special equipment required by the individual or his squad. With this load, 42 Commando made a "Big Yomp" (forced march) of 80 miles across the Falklands. The yomp was made in three days across boggy and wet ground during wet and cold weather. Now that was a bit excessive. based on lessons learned there are now guidelines for determining the soldier's combat load: the fighting load for a properly conditioned soldier should not exceed 48 pounds; the approach march load should not exceed 72 pounds; the weights include all clothing and equipment, either worn or carried. <P>LNS, special forces in general are not supposed to try and slug things out; they get in, get the job done and get out while doing their best to avoid the enemy where possible. Their requirements will always be different from the bulk of the infantry and the army. Accuracy is not as much of an issue when you are engaged primarily in short-range direct action.Stopping power, and a good rate of fire is. Equipment is always less of an issue for men who are trained to a certain level; they would have accomplished their mission with any comparable weapon as long as they had time to familiarise themselves and train with it. <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 06-07-99).]

[Tim]

To add a little to Johann's posts, <P>In general, infantrymen are not asked to carry more than 40% of their bodyweight on long marches, because they tend to break down physically very quickly in combat with those loads. 25% is better - using a notional "average" 160 lb. infantryman, you can get some idea of the burden the Commandos were working under.<P>Mind you, it's been some time since I weighed in at 160 lbs., but it's also been a while since I was under fire ><P>IIRC, one of the problems with the M-14 (similar to FN-FAL) at full auto is the recoil - the 7.62 mm slug at full auto is a bit much for even serious riflemen. There's also a weight problem: 7.62 mm rounds are larger, which means fewer to a clip, which means more rapid ammo reloads and requirements for more clips per soldier, etc.<P>One of the main differences between the 7.62 mm rifle and the 5.56 or 5.45 mm is that the 7.62 tends to be sighted for longer ranges, and actually used at them (in semi-auto mode). The M-16 is derived from the AR-15, which was originally intended to be used at ranges less than 100 yards. Once the US Army got hold of it, they changed the powder, added a couple of extra grooves to the barrel, and did other things to it which allowed engagement at longer ranges, but also made it much less capable in general. The M16A1 jammed far too frequently, and many grunts in Vietnam preferred the robust AK-47s that they captured from the Viet Cong or NVA. James Fallows did a long article on this about twenty years ago, if anybody wants to look it up. My understanding is that the M16A2 is a much better weapon, and the Israelis have chosen it over continued production of the Galil (which I guess says something).<P>Tim

[Sukumar]

Since there has been so much discussion on the FN-FAL, here is a website dedicated to the <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/1234/fal.html" TARGET=EXTERNAL>FABRIQUE NATIONALE - FUSIL AUTOMATIQUE LEGER (FN-FAL)</A>. It has extensive discussions, articles, history and even discussion boards.<P>Here are some of the more popular assault rifles:<P>Info on the <A HREF="http://www.colt.com/colt/html/a2f17_m16a22.html" TARGET=EXTERNAL>M-16A2</A><P>Info on the <A HREF="http://www.colt.com/colt/html/a2f27_m203grenade.html" TARGET=EXTERNAL>M-203 Grenade Launcher</A><P>Info on the <A HREF="http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka78.html" TARGET=EXTERNAL>AKM Assault Rifle</A><P>Info on the <A HREF="http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/galil.html" TARGET=EXTERNAL>The Israeli GALIL Assault Rifle (derived from the AK-47)</A><P>Info on the <A HREF="http://user.icx.net/~jonesgil/HK54.HTM" TARGET=EXTERNAL>Heckler & Koch MP-5</A><P>Info on the <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/4722/aug.html" TARGET=EXTERNAL>Steyr AUG</A><p>[This message has been edited by R Sukumar (edited 07-07-99).]

[Sukumar]

I know a US Army officer (now in the reserves). He's fired the M-16A2 and M203 grenade launcher. He has nothing but praise for the A2 and says 3 round bursts are more than adequate even in the hottest of battles. His exact words "you can get off a whole lotta ammo even with 3 round bursts..". Also talked about the US Army study that came up with the 3 round burst decision.<P>He holds the AK-47 in high regard. From my own experience firing the H &K MP-5 with the selector set to 3 round burst, you can get a high rate of fire with quick aimed squeezes of the trigger. Incidentally, the MP-5 has a selector with 3 settings - 1 round, 3 round burst and full auto.<P>During this particular firing session I also fired a Sten gun and a Uzi. Guess what, the Uzi (a beautiful weapon) jammed twice. The Sten and MP-5 never did. The Sten is a real sprayer. Good for close quarters "shoot from the hip" style battle. The MP-5, now that's the weapon to put metal on target.

[Johann]

The M-14 had a few other problems as well; it's fore end was too fat to allow proper use with a bayonet attached, and rifle lacked a pistol grip. This is not to say the rifle was a complete toss up. In fact it's quite pleasant to shoot on semi-auto and is actually rather accurate, and is easy to steady between succesive shots. A sniper variant saw quite a bit of action in Vietnam. Best of all the M-14 looks splendid on the parade ground with it's wooden furniture and traditional stock! That's my only complaint against the SA-80, it's short, stubby with synthetic furniture and just didn't look that impressive when we drilled with them.<P> The biggest problem with the M-16 A1 was the decision to reduce cost by not chroming the chamber. In the mud and humidity of SE Asia the chamber quickly corroded and collected dirt. Combine that with the dirtier but more powerful propellant that was initially used and you realise why it often jammed or misfired.<P> Tim, on the subject of the Big Yomp, it was not something that was planned ahead. The plan was for a heliborne assault, but the Argies sank Atlantic Conveyer a transport with most of the choppers. Planners now make a point not to put too many eggs of the same type in one basket. However the Island still had to be taken quickly so they marched all the way from San Carlos to Goose Green, one of the major engagements, and then on to Port Stanley. Quite a few men came down with trenchfoot from the prolonged exposure to the wet and cold but boots after that were redesigned. I can't imagine what it was like before goretex. It just goes to show that no matter what the technology, circumstances can bring the isuue down to who march further and shoot straighter. It's one of the reasons the yomp is still an important part of light infantry training. <P>It's the duty of the batallion and company commanders to figure out a proper load for their troops. In Grenada American soldiers found themselves waddling around with 120 lb packs carrying junk they didn't really need. Anything non-essential can be distributed later during resupplies.<P> R Sukumar; the MP-5 really is a great wepon isn't it? Amazing build quality too. Phenominally accurate for a 9mm submachine gun. I've never had a jam in all the hundreds of rounds I've fired. Can't say the same of the M-16. Did you fire a Sten or a Stirling?<P> I own only two weapons. One is a Walther P-88, and the other is an Enfield No. 4 mk. I. Despite all the weapons I've ever fired, that WW2 vintage gun remains my favourite. I have been able to consistantly put ten shots into a 15 cm circle at 400m without a scope. Paul, are your Ishapores chambered for the 7.62 or the .303 rounds? <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 08-07-99).]

[Sukumar]

Johann, yup the MP-5 is a real tribute to German engineering. I was amazed at its stability. The Uzi by contrast would spray all over the place. It was only on my second mag that I could excercise some control over it.<P>Yeah I fired a Sten. An original manufactured during WWII. I had heard and read so much about the Sten's simplicity and robustness. Well firing it was believing. I have seen Indian cops carrying the Sten. Looked (at that time) like one of those grease guns that truckers use. Along with the carrier, and Harrier I think the Sten ranks up there as a symbol of British ingenuity. <P>On the soldier's load question, my US Army pal was telling me that they'd strip eveything down including their K rations (and swap items around) and carry the minimum possible. Clean underwear, socks and coffee packets ranked tops he says.

[Neshant]

One problem with the Russian built AK-47 is that its very difficult to lie belly down on the ground and fire accurately because the long ammo clip is a nusiance. You're either forced to crouch and fire or stand up and fire (in which case you get shot dead almost immediately). I've fired it and don't really find it comfortable to handle. But it is very stable during fire and doesn't "kick back" when the bullet flies.<P>One good aspect of the INSAS modified Ak-47 is that the ammo clip length has been greatly shortened making it more effective for sniping.

[Johann]

Sukumar, keeping your feet and your arse warm, dry and clean are the most important priorities on the field (well other than not getting killed). It will keep your men fresh and effective. Bergens are always dumped during a firefight and retrieved later. Members of a section usually have specialised roles, so items are swapped around; for example the GMPG team has to carry their belted ammo, so another man may carry their bedrolls. The section commander will carry extra mags, and hand them out when needed, etc. <P> As for the difference between the MP-5 (which variant did you fire?) and the Uzi,it's an almost unfair comparison; look at their prices and one realises that one gets exctly what one pays for. <P> Nehant, are you sure you were in the proper prone position? The longer clip means you have to prop yourself a little higher on your elbows(presenting a slightly larger profile), but you should be able to effectively work around it. Firing styles are often issues of personal preference, but next time try leaning into the butt while gripping the forestock firmly. Don't try to rest your weight on the pistolgrip hand, keep it bent at the elbow and in the air, tilt your wrists if necessary. For prolonged firing you can find some sort of rest (a piece of masonry, a a rise in the ground, anything.Off course you'll need to be wearing a thick shirt or have something under the elbow you're supporting your weight on. Or you can ignore the pain. But yes, the Ak's don't have particularly good balance. That along with the quality of their barrels is part of their accuracy problem.<P> The INSAS uses a smaller round (5.56) so of course even a 30-round clip will be significantly smaller than an AKM or AK 47 7.62mm 30 round clip. <P> S.Sharma, yes you're right the SKS is a good place to start but the FN-FAL, AR-15 or any other similar rifle could shoot rings around it. There's also the Ruger mini-14. <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 08-07-99).]

[Ashwin B]

Hi Guys,<BR>I hate to spoil this healthy discussion, but there was something in this article that I wanted to bring it to all your attention. This is regarding the INSAS usage in Kashmir. Looks like our soldiers aren't too happy with it. <BR>Jarugn has provided the link in another thread which I'll post it here since it is relevant to this thread as well. And I quote from the article:<BR>Soldiers also say a new 5.56mm carbine recently issued does not carry the punch of the AK-56 and other assault guns used by the infiltrators.<BR> "We often use weapons and ammunition captured from the enemy because some of them are really top of the shelf," said one major with an elite paratrooper brigade. <P>What could be the reason for the soldiers' disappointment with the 5.56mm INSAS? I did read Sukumar's explanation of the 5.56 and 7.62 numbers and sort of guessed the reason behind the "Lack of Punch". The tradeoff seems to be the so called "Punch" for the ability of the rifle being lighter, lesser recoil, greater bullet instability in flight and the enabling the soldier to carry more ammo. Is this a good bargain?<P>Felt bad/embarrassed about the "using enemy's weapons and ammo" and angry at our politicians. > <BR>Read more at:<BR> <A HREF="http://asia.yahoo.com/headlines/090799/ ... sasia.html" TARGET=_blank>asia.yahoo.com/headlines/090799/news/931482960-90709011629.newsasia.html</A> <p>[This message has been edited by ashwinB (edited 08-07-99).]

[Sukumar]

Johann, I fired an MP-5A5 with an extra long 30 round magazine (fingers hurt loading the damn thing). This weapon also had an extra handle on the receiver, which I have not seen on other MP-5s. The guys who was renting it to us said it was an added option which is not so common.<P>This thread is getting too long. Time to close it down me thinks.

[Shirish]

I thought indian special forces use the AK-47, and the MP-5. ( I know the MP-5 is standard for the MCF guys).

[advitya]

up