INSAS Rifle, LMG & Carbine

[Shaitan]

Garud Commando? Next time Bangalore police sends these boys to tackle a knife wielding lunatic our MSM will think Kanartaka has roped in IAF to neuteralize the guy!

Not IAF gaurdas, but Bangalore special police.

 

[aditya g]

Not IAF gaurdas, but Bangalore special police.

Correct, I was commenting on the duplicate name.

 

[abingdonboy]

Bangalore's Garud commando force@abingdonboy

Garud Commando? Next time Bangalore police sends these boys to tackle a knife wielding lunatic our MSM will think Kanartaka has roped in IAF to neuteralize the guy!

Not IAF gaurdas, but Bangalore special police.

Correct, I was commenting on the duplicate name.

Right, to add confusion Bangaluru has called their emergency response unit the "Garuda" unit/force which have no affiliation whatsoever to the IAF's Special Operations force of the same name.

 

[Shaitan]

New LMG awaits ladies

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Right, to add confusion Bangaluru has called their emergency response unit the "Garuda" unit/force which have no affiliation whatsoever to the IAF's Special Operations force of the same name.

Nice to see you here. It is desirable that more and more Indian members join here and leave that Jihadi's thread PDF.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

New LMG awaits ladies

This is a great news. I think some private players with dedicated facilities can push R & D efforts very fast. I want some more and more private players to enter into this field. INSAS costed rs 3.5 crore in R & D and got the order of More than Rs 6000 crore. this is the potential in small arms manufacturing. We can simply buy the barrel and other technologies at throw awy prices from russia and other countries.

 

[EliteFoxtrot]

I personally think that instead of wasting money on these pathetically designed riffles, MOD should concentrate to develop a riffle with 6.8mm configuration and a DMR with 7.62*51mm riffle (SLR) will be great after some modifications, here we have to target international markets if we succeed in impressing international buyers the demand of the riffle will automatically rise. For example you can see Galil series of Isreal that firearm family is purely based on Ak, but they are continuously upgrading them and now approx 40 nations are using their firearms. If they can do that than India too have bright minds in this field Just target international market your condition will automatically recover.

 

[EliteFoxtrot]

Bangalore have a special unit instead of having home of the most experienced and capable Special Force in their backyard thats quiet weird

 

[abingdonboy]

Bangalore have a special unit instead of having home of the most experienced and capable Special Force in their backyard thats quiet weird

The PARA (SF) are not meant to be first responders, every city and large town needs to have well equipped specilist units to be first responders in any emergency. The PARA (SF) will be the unit of last resort (beyond even the NSG perhaps for Bangalore).


The PARA (SF)'s primary role is not and never will be internal security/intervention.


There'e nothing werid about it.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Never underestimate a round, only because it's .22 diameter bullet.

Graphic Pictures :

This is work of NATO 5.56mm which are lighter than OFB 5.56mm ammo

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vJcKa90vLkg/S2RTg_KWWCI/AAAAAAAAHyI/JkspbO3VNfU/s1024/image006.jpg
http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/75688.jpg
sniper_shot2_292.jpg Photo by IkeMcgowan | Photobucket

===============

5.56mm has many variation, IA use 64gr 5.56mm with Muzzle velocity of 2900fps vs NATO SS109 62gn at 2900fps, With 1B1`s 18inch barrel and with twist rate 1/7, Its is killing even at 650ms range, 600ms is more than sufficient for AR range as most battle occur under 300ms ..

INSAS 5.56mm Rifle Use NATO standard FMJ Ammunition this Include SS109, M193 Also Indian Made 5.56mm, Details and Pictures following >>

=========================
=========================


5.56 X 45MM SS109 FMJ

Mass : 4.0 gm

==========================
==========================

5.56 X 45mm M193 FMJ

Mass : 3.56 gm

==========================
==========================

5.56 X 45mm OFB FMJ

Mass : 4.16 gm

===========================
===========================

About newer 6.5mm or 6.8mm and their marketing advertise as it is heavier and faster yet at affordable recoil, Then its just advertisement for marketing, New Generation 5.56mm have similar or better preform ace, I have posted a research in last page conducted by US army with other caliber rounds as you mentioned ..

========================>>>>>>

The U.S. Army recently conducted one of the most extensive studies into small arms performance in CQB (Close Quarters Battle) and published their findings. This study was conducted to answer concerns that some warriors were expressing in After Action Reports (AAR) post battle about the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge.

The test team not only tested M193, M995 (AP) and M855 "Green Tip", but they also tested a number of other loads to see if there were any improvements made to the combat effectiveness of the 5.56mm round by civilian companies.

In the 5th paragraph of the report, Major David LaFontaine makes the following statement which pretty much sums up what I've been saying about caliber selection for many years.

'In the end, "footpounds of energy" is misleading, "stopping power" is a myth, and the "oneshot drop" is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection. Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat."

In the end the U.S. Army found that no commercially available alternatives in 5.56mm ammunition performed measurably better than existing issued ammo (M855, M193, M995). This study was based on CQB effectiveness, and from the ranges of 0-50 meters all ammo tested performed similarly and none stood out as being clearly superior.

Also worth mention is that during this testing the U.S. Army also tested the M80 7.62x51mm round fired from an M14 to compare it to the performance of the 5.56mm in CQB conditions. It performed in the same band of performance as the 5.56mm ammo tested. They concluded that in a CQB situation the 7.62x51mm round offered no measurable performance benefit over the 5.56mm round.

One more important note, they also concluded that "shot placement trumps all other variables". This is something I've been saying for years (and in some of my videos found on my YouTube channel). Take the weapon you can best hit the target with, then worry about what caliber it is.

Source : http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf

But range and accuracy of INSAS will always be more then AK.

Strike of AK will be Lethal while that of INSAS may not kill enemy.

==============================

Mk 262 77-grain 5.56mm ammunition

Test of the 5.56mm NATO MK 262 Mod 1 77 gr OTM from Black Hills. The MK262 Mod 1 is topped by a Sierra MatchKing bullet, and is an active-duty military cartridge. Test shot at 100 yards using clear gel from ClearBallistics.com. Video includes review of the cartridge, test shot, and some close-up views of the clear block.

The Mk 262 is a match quality round manufactured by Black Hills Ammunition made originally for the Special Purpose Rifle (SPR). It uses a 77-grain (5.0 g) Sierra MatchKing bullet that is more effective at longer ranges than the standard issue M855 round.

Two versions of the round have been procured to date. Initial production runs, designated Mark 262 Mod 0, lacked a cannelure. Subsequent production, designated Mk 262 Mod 1, added a cannelure to the bullet for effective crimping.

According to US DoD sources, the Mk 262 round is capable of making kills at 700 meters. Ballistics tests found that the round caused "consistent initial yaw in soft tissue" at more than 300 meters. Apparently it is superior to the standard M855 round when fired from an M4 or M16 rifle. It evidently possesses superior stopping power, and can allow for engagements to be extended to up to 700 meters when fired from an 18 inch barrel. It appears that this round can drastically improve the performance of any AR15 platform weapon chambered to .223/5.56 mm. Superior accuracy, wounding capacity, stopping power and range power has made this the preferred round of many Special Forces operators..


===================================
===================================

There is a new 5.56 INSAS ammunition that has been approved but not inducted by the army. Probably higher velocity and weight than the current 64 grain ammunition in use.
http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defence/16_Defence_3.pdf

I am posting the relevant parts from the report in full.

Need for new Rifle for Army
INSAS Rifles
1.41 The media has reported that the services are not happy with this weapon
and want a better-one to counter threats, therefore, the Committee was desirous
to know the problems being faced by the forces in using the INSAS Rifle, what
DRDO has done for its improvement as well as they want to know reason of
failure of DRDO in coming upto the expectations of the forces in developing any
good Rifle. The Ministry in a written reply supplied the following information:
'(i) INSAS Rifle was designed and developed by DRDO based on
Qualitative Requirements (QRs) set in 1982 and met all QR parameters 26
and inducted into Service in 1996. The Rifle has been fully exploited since
then including OP Vijay in 1999. Subsequent to OP Vijay, the following
problems were observed:
(a) Loosening of flash eliminator
(b) Loosening of Piece guide
(c) Upper Hand Guard requirement
(d) Additional safety in firing mechanism
(e) Grenade sight requirement
(f) Improved Lever Locking Gas Cylinder
(ii) DRDO & Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) jointly took up product
improvement program based on the above feedback received from User.
Necessary improvements were carried out and introduced in the Improved
Rifle as Rifle Mark 1B1 in 2001.Later on, plastic magazine cracking
problem was reported. Earlier, the magazine were procured ex-trade. The
magazine production has now been established at Ordnance Factory Dum
Dum and problems have been resolved.'
1.42 The Ministry further stated:
'Lethality of INSAS Ammm perceived to be less. A Lethal Ammm design in
5.56 Caliber was evolved and the same was trial evaluated by user and
found acceptable by Indian Army in 2013 however, Army is yet to
introduce the same.'
1.43 On the cost of development it further stated that DRDO has developed the
INSAS weapon system at a cost of Rs.3.50 Cr. The necessary cost of
improvements was borne by OFB.
The INSAS Rifle was developed based on GSQR No. 429 in 1982 meeting
all parameters. With the change in operational environment/war scenario a
new Rifle development under Tech demo mode was envisaged. To meet
the current requirement a state-of-the-art Rifle (Multi Caliber Individual
Weapon System, (MCIWS)) development was taken up as R&D project in
2008. The prototypes have been developed and are under evaluation'.

Recommendations

Need for new Rifle for Army
INSAS Rifle Vs Assault Rifle
20. The Committee note that INSAS Rifle was designed and developed by
DRDO based on Qualitative Requirements (QRs) set in 1982 and met all QR
parameters and inducted into Service in 1996. The Rifle has been fully
exploited since then including OP Vijay in 1999. Subsequent to OP Vijay,
the problems started occurring e.g. loosening of flash eliminator, loosening
of Piece guide etc. The requirement was also felt for Upper Hand Guard,
additional safety in firing mechanism, Grenade sight requirement,
Improved Lever Locking Gas Cylinder. The Committee also note that DRDO
and Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) jointly took up product improvement
programme based on this feedback and introduced the Improved Rifle as
Rifle Mark 1B1 in 2001. Later on, plastic magazine cracking problem was
reported. Earlier, the magazines were procured ex-trade but now
production has been established at Ordnance Factory Dum Dum and
problems have been resolved.
From the information furnished, the Committee are dismayed to learn
that DRDO started working on INSAS Rifle way back in 1982 but
surprisingly it took 14 years in its development and could able to deliver
the Rifle only in 1996. But just after 3 years, the quality of rifle tested in
Operation Vijay revealed that product was not up to the mark and many
improvements were needed. The Committee find it shocking that even 53
years of expertise has not evolved DRDO to develop a world class basic
product like rifle.
21. The Committee also note that at present Army uses in-service INSAS
and AK-47 rifles in various situations, however, Indian Army is in the
process of procuring Assault Rifles through a global tender with Transfer
of Technology to Ordnance Factory Board.
Considering the track record of DRDO, the Committee recommend
that a world class product after satisfying the requirement of user i.e. Army
may be purchased out rightly for immediate use after trials are over and
services of DRDO may be utilized to get Transfer of Technology to produce
this item in the country.
22. After contemplating over the various issues involved in INSAS and
Assault Rifles, the Committee feel that either Long Term Integrated
Perspective Plan (LTIPP) and the five year Services Capital Acquisition
Plan (SCAP) is not properly designed or there is some fault with the
procurement procedures, otherwise, the problems of INSAS Rifle which
were surfaced in 1996, almost 18 years ago, a Request for Proposal for
new Rifle could be issued more than a decade later.

I personally think that instead of wasting money on these pathetically designed riffles, MOD should concentrate to develop a riffle with 6.8mm configuration and a DMR with 7.62*51mm riffle (SLR) will be great after some modifications, here we have to target international markets if we succeed in impressing international buyers the demand of the riffle will automatically rise. For example you can see Galil series of Isreal that firearm family is purely based on Ak, but they are continuously upgrading them and now approx 40 nations are using their firearms. If they can do that than India too have bright minds in this field Just target international market your condition will automatically recover.

 

[punjab47]

Us army now uses 77gr Open Tip Match rounds
http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com...150312/Corps-use-more-lethal-ammo-Afghanistan

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1...m-nato-77-grain-sierra-matchking-hollow-point

Despite all the myths, this corrected most of the problems. I remember commenting on this thread about this very thing, sometime last christian year.

Made them lethal to 350m accurate to 500+

Much better rounds for that environment. We can actually use OTM for anti terror & AP like green tip for conventional.

Will allow us to keep single rifle & system. Even hybrid like OTM for LMG or Rifle only etc.

The problems of Insas beyond Q&A were always ammo problems.

I hope someone in army reads this post : try out the 77gr in Excalibur. Then you will see;

That round even convinced me off 762 39

My post on OTM may be on old account Jatt.hindustan I remember standard AK round drops more than 20inch at 300m.

Standard 6x gr 556 is around 14 6.xmm is 3-4 more.

OTM made 556 accurate defined as below 20" drop out to almost 450m.

Nothing else to be said, Pak army can act tough with g3 but, they will be carrying 50% of ammo & have less fire support.

We should be looking at getting guided mortar, artillery & mlrs. Given lower tfr, this is even more imperative.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-317712.html

Remember 65gr fmj bullets fragment up to 100m from 14.5" barrel of m4.

Add 4" to barrel means basically 200m. Then you have extra 10gr + OTM so it can reliably fragment to Atleast 3-350.

With center of mass, like I said with proper shot in chest or stomach it should rip through kevlar & Atleast tumble even at 400 out of Insas.

The type of 556 is problem, the round itself is fine.

 

[Chinmoy]

Never underestimate a round, only because it's .22 diameter bullet.

Graphic Pictures :

This is work of NATO 5.56mm which are lighter than OFB 5.56mm ammo

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vJcKa90vLkg/S2RTg_KWWCI/AAAAAAAAHyI/JkspbO3VNfU/s1024/image006.jpg
http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/75688.jpg
sniper_shot2_292.jpg Photo by IkeMcgowan | Photobucket

===============

5.56mm has many variation, IA use 64gr 5.56mm with Muzzle velocity of 2900fps vs NATO SS109 62gn at 2900fps, With 1B1`s 18inch barrel and with twist rate 1/7, Its is killing even at 650ms range, 600ms is more than sufficient for AR range as most battle occur under 300ms ..

INSAS 5.56mm Rifle Use NATO standard FMJ Ammunition this Include SS109, M193 Also Indian Made 5.56mm, Details and Pictures following >>

=========================
=========================


5.56 X 45MM SS109 FMJ

Mass : 4.0 gm

==========================
==========================

5.56 X 45mm M193 FMJ

Mass : 3.56 gm

==========================
==========================

5.56 X 45mm OFB FMJ

Mass : 4.16 gm

===========================
===========================

About newer 6.5mm or 6.8mm and their marketing advertise as it is heavier and faster yet at affordable recoil, Then its just advertisement for marketing, New Generation 5.56mm have similar or better preform ace, I have posted a research in last page conducted by US army with other caliber rounds as you mentioned ..

========================>>>>>>

The U.S. Army recently conducted one of the most extensive studies into small arms performance in CQB (Close Quarters Battle) and published their findings. This study was conducted to answer concerns that some warriors were expressing in After Action Reports (AAR) post battle about the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge.

The test team not only tested M193, M995 (AP) and M855 "Green Tip", but they also tested a number of other loads to see if there were any improvements made to the combat effectiveness of the 5.56mm round by civilian companies.

In the 5th paragraph of the report, Major David LaFontaine makes the following statement which pretty much sums up what I've been saying about caliber selection for many years.

'In the end, "footpounds of energy" is misleading, "stopping power" is a myth, and the "oneshot drop" is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection. Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat."

In the end the U.S. Army found that no commercially available alternatives in 5.56mm ammunition performed measurably better than existing issued ammo (M855, M193, M995). This study was based on CQB effectiveness, and from the ranges of 0-50 meters all ammo tested performed similarly and none stood out as being clearly superior.

Also worth mention is that during this testing the U.S. Army also tested the M80 7.62x51mm round fired from an M14 to compare it to the performance of the 5.56mm in CQB conditions. It performed in the same band of performance as the 5.56mm ammo tested. They concluded that in a CQB situation the 7.62x51mm round offered no measurable performance benefit over the 5.56mm round.

One more important note, they also concluded that "shot placement trumps all other variables". This is something I've been saying for years (and in some of my videos found on my YouTube channel). Take the weapon you can best hit the target with, then worry about what caliber it is.

Source : http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf






==============================

Mk 262 77-grain 5.56mm ammunition



The Mk 262 is a match quality round manufactured by Black Hills Ammunition made originally for the Special Purpose Rifle (SPR). It uses a 77-grain (5.0 g) Sierra MatchKing bullet that is more effective at longer ranges than the standard issue M855 round.

Two versions of the round have been procured to date. Initial production runs, designated Mark 262 Mod 0, lacked a cannelure. Subsequent production, designated Mk 262 Mod 1, added a cannelure to the bullet for effective crimping.

According to US DoD sources, the Mk 262 round is capable of making kills at 700 meters. Ballistics tests found that the round caused "consistent initial yaw in soft tissue" at more than 300 meters. Apparently it is superior to the standard M855 round when fired from an M4 or M16 rifle. It evidently possesses superior stopping power, and can allow for engagements to be extended to up to 700 meters when fired from an 18 inch barrel. It appears that this round can drastically improve the performance of any AR15 platform weapon chambered to .223/5.56 mm. Superior accuracy, wounding capacity, stopping power and range power has made this the preferred round of many Special Forces operators..


===================================
===================================

There is a new 5.56 INSAS ammunition that has been approved but not inducted by the army. Probably higher velocity and weight than the current 64 grain ammunition in use.
http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defence/16_Defence_3.pdf

I am posting the relevant parts from the report in full.

Probably now all those skeptism on 5.56 would slow down a bit. But here again I think the muzzle velocity would play its part when it would come to somewhere in 300+ range. Moreover don't you think that instead of developing MINSAS we should have concentrated more on the platform to mitigate the recoil to use the same 5.56 round in both weapon system?

 

[punjab47]

@Chinmoy @Kunal Biswas @Elite foxtrot
The 3 main infantry cartridges today are 556 762x39 & 308 (x51 nato)

39 drops too much so is unviable, for main infantry.
77gr otm 2800fps. Bc 0.362 newer ones 420
64gr ofb standard 3000. Let's use m855. 304
7.62x51 nato 2600 g3a3 w/ 147grBc 0.2

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=16418
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...grain-tipped-matchking-precision-5-56mm-ammo/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×51mm_NATO

556 20rd 300g Vs 680 for 51.

Results Hornady ballistic calculator

Otm 450yd: 1800fps, 550ftlb,45" drop
750yd: 1280fps, 280ftlb, 190"

G3: 450yd: 1100fps, 400ft lb, 80" 750yd: 800fps, 230ft lb, 400" drop

At 300yd or 270m the 556 puts out almost 10% more energy at 750 Vs 700ft lb.

At muzzle i1300 Vs 2200 but at 150yd g3 only ahead 1283 to 1011. past 150m the g3 packs less punch than insas & misses more . Level 3 armor fine past 100m.

let's see the m855 & new otm(420 ballistic coefficient) in comparison.

M855 62gr heavier than m193 55gr Vietnam.

http://rifleshooter.com/2014/04/223...gth-a-man-his-chop-box-and-his-friends-rifle/

improved 77gr 450: 1900,600,43
750: 1400,350,170

150yd : 2400,1050,1

300yd it's 815ft lb Vs 700 in favor 556

M855 62gr450yd: 1800,450,42
750: 1200,200,189150: 2550,900,1

300yd: 630 less energy than g3 till 350m

Conclusion

77gr otm more energy greater accuracy past 250m. At 300yd g3 bullet drops 23" Vs 13 for 77/62gr 556.After 50-75m g3 rapidly loses advantage in force delivered. advantage disappears & reverses past 175m.

myth of Pakistan Army having better rifle

If soldiers feeling outgunned with 64gr bullet, solution is heavier bullet.

no logistical issues, no equipment changes.

Going past 80gr the velocity loss makes bullet less accurate & energetic.

lighter weight/lesser recoil of Insas should be advantage at cqb. In forested environment the 77gr may be heavy enough to overcome deficiencies of m193 55gr in Vietnam.

--
remember that we have bigger guns for past 500m. Can't expect world from 18” barrel.

Have ran calculations in 6.5, 6.8 & 5.45 before less accurate & less energy at range. Former 2 heavier for no reason, latter doesn't fragment. It tumbles more reliably Vs m193 but not Vs m855 or newer mk262 otm.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

OFB designer came up with Kalantak back in days but got rejected as Carbine as per Indian standards cannot have such recoil, So back in drawing board people design shorter round with powerful powder to gain same velocity or closer with required given range..

Probably now all those skeptism on 5.56 would slow down a bit. But here again I think the muzzle velocity would play its part when it would come to somewhere in 300+ range. Moreover don't you think that instead of developing MINSAS we should have concentrated more on the platform to mitigate the recoil to use the same 5.56 round in both weapon system?

 

[Shaitan]

.......................

 

[kr9]

Results Hornady ballistic calculator

Otm 450yd: 1800fps, 550ftlb,45" drop
750yd: 1280fps, 280ftlb, 190"

G3: 450yd: 1100fps, 400ft lb, 80" 750yd: 800fps, 230ft lb, 400" drop

At 300yd or 270m the 556 puts out almost 10% more energy at 750 Vs 700ft lb.

At muzzle i1300 Vs 2200 but at 150yd g3 only ahead 1283 to 1011. past 150m the g3 packs less punch than insas & misses more . Level 3 armor fine past 100m.

let's see the m855 & new otm(420 ballistic coefficient) in comparison.

M855 62gr heavier than m193 55gr Vietnam.

http://rifleshooter.com/2014/04/223...gth-a-man-his-chop-box-and-his-friends-rifle/

improved 77gr 450: 1900,600,43
750: 1400,350,170

150yd : 2400,1050,1

300yd it's 815ft lb Vs 700 in favor 556

M855 62gr450yd: 1800,450,42
750: 1200,200,189150: 2550,900,1

300yd: 630 less energy than g3 till 350m

Conclusion

77gr otm more energy greater accuracy past 250m. At 300yd g3 bullet drops 23" Vs 13 for 77/62gr 556.After 50-75m g3 rapidly loses advantage in force delivered. advantage disappears & reverses past 175m.

myth of Pakistan Army having better rifle

If soldiers feeling outgunned with 64gr bullet, solution is heavier bullet.

no logistical issues, no equipment changes.

Going past 80gr the velocity loss makes bullet less accurate & energetic.

lighter weight/lesser recoil of Insas should be advantage at cqb. In forested environment the 77gr may be heavy enough to overcome deficiencies of m193 55gr in Vietnam.

--
remember that we have bigger guns for past 500m. Can't expect world from 18” barrel.

Have ran calculations in 6.5, 6.8 & 5.45 before less accurate & less energy at range. Former 2 heavier for no reason, latter doesn't fragment. It tumbles more reliably Vs m193 but not Vs m855 or newer mk262 otm.

You are making a believer out of me for the 5.56 round.

But,

G3: 450yd: 1100fps, 400ft lb, 80" 750yd: 800fps, 230ft lb, 400" drop

That can't be true.

H&K G3 uses the 147gr 7.62x51 Nato. Same as our Rifle 1A FALs
With Ballistic coefficient of 0.393; Zero at 100m;Sight ht at 1.5";
the 7.62 NATO ballistics are:

450 yds | 46.39" drop | 1800 fps | 1058 ft.lbs
750 yds | 191.39" drop | 1324 fps | 573 ft.lbs

which is a good match to the 77gr OTM 5.56 round.
But yes, more recoil and more wt/bullet.

PS: I used
http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php

 

[punjab47]

You are making a believer out of me for the 5.56 round.

But,



That can't be true.

H&K G3 uses the 147gr 7.62x51 Nato. Same as our Rifle 1A FALs
With Ballistic coefficient of 0.393; Zero at 100m;Sight ht at 1.5";
the 7.62 NATO ballistics are:

450 yds | 46.39" drop | 1800 fps | 1058 ft.lbs
750 yds | 191.39" drop | 1324 fps | 573 ft.lbs

which is a good match to the 77gr OTM 5.56 round.
But yes, more recoil and more wt/bullet.

PS: I used
http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php

Co efficient of nato 762 is.0.2 also depends on what fps you start at. What can you expect from heavy, not very aerodynamic round out of 17" barrel.

Edit also recoil also means lower sustained rate of fire, more fatigue etc. The studies that led to intermediate rounds concluded volume of fire wins firefights.

Lighter gun, lighter bullet, more firing.
Add in the accuracy & lethality at range.
Never thought I'd be advocating for 556 lol

 

[The Last Stand]

Don't forget that US soldiers could literally carry TWICE as much 5.56 as 7.62 when it was introduced.

The bulk of the rounds combined with the magazines made quite a difference.

 

[kr9]

Co efficient of nato 762 is.0.2 also depends on what fps you start at. What can you expect from heavy, not very aerodynamic round out of 17" barrel.

Edit also recoil also means lower sustained rate of fire, more fatigue etc. The studies that led to intermediate rounds concluded volume of fire wins firefights.

Lighter gun, lighter bullet, more firing.
Add in the accuracy & lethality at range.
Never thought I'd be advocating for 556 lol

Maybe it is the G3 design. Our FALs fare better, I think.
CT units still uses FALs as sniper in jungle environments.

Also, the pioneers of the 556 ammo (Americans) also keep developing 7.62 NATO models for all their weapon platforms (AR, HK 417. SCARs); maybe we should too.

 

[punjab47]

Maybe it is the G3 design. Our FALs fare better, I think.
CT units still uses FALs as sniper in jungle environments.

Also, the pioneers of the 556 ammo (Americans) also keep developing 7.62 NATO models for all their weapon platforms (AR, HK 417. SCARs); maybe we should too.

You used a ballistic coefficient almost double the real value. USA civilian market develops for anything that has a market.

I don't know I like 556 for the weight & range over 762x39. 308 is a hunter or sniper's weapon, not average infantrymen.