At about 500 meters, accuracy of all rounds of all calibre is supposed to be good. 7.62 is heavier round and has kess muzzle velocity than 5.56. Therefore 5.56 is more accurate. There is effect of wind but only when it is a little strong but that soldiers are taught to adjust to it. In engaging a target there is something called acquisition and identification and capbility at aimiming of target. For a man size target, the largest acquisition and aiming range is 500 meters (walking man).
Any small arms gun like MMG which fires at greater ranges than that is area weapon. It sweeps the area rather than aim at a man.
Any weapon which is very good up to 300 / 400 is personal rifle or personal weapon. That happens to be a good range for identification and aimimg for a lighter weapon, lighter than squad or area weapon.
So far so good.
Any weapons capable of accuracy and rapid volume of fire upto 500 / 600 m is a squad weapon and can be used in auto or single shot modes.
In auto mode, at a distance of >500m is going to be a waste of bullets. It can be used if a column of soldiers are charging your way. Then you can hope that some of them will be taken out. Otherwise, full auto is useless.
Accuracy (ability to put the round at point of aim) depends on many factors and muzzle velocity, size and shape of the bullets (effecting yaw and pitch of the aerodynamics of the ballistics) vibrations, stability of hold, and propellant variations/ characteristics.
Stability of hold does not matter in automatic mode. It happens in movies, but not in real life. People who think that automatics are better than semi-automatics as the standard infantry weapon, are completely deluded.
Personal weapon or rifle of the soldiers must also be able to fire in a CQB role at 50 meters (accuracy in automatic fire) with a very heavy volume of fire which INSAS is not capable of.
Again, carrying over fro the previous point, I will cite an example.
Example: UK-Argentina Falklands War. The Argentinians used automatic FN-FALs while the British used semi-automatic FN-FALs. Guess who performed better? Fully automatic for powerful rounds is a silly and impractical idea, but then, when such people make crucial decision, the results show.
INSAS has bad wound ballistics. 7.62 causes larger and fatal wounds. A soldier may get hit by 5.56 calibre at 500 meters and still walk up to 50 meters near to you to fight another battle.
COIN and conventional war are different things. 5.56mm INSAS rounds are more powerful than their counterparts used in US M16. Typically, 5.56mm rounds have the
tumble effect on entering flesh and on shot in the torso is good enough to take the target down. This does not happen in case of 7.62mm rounds (not talking about PK, SVD, Lee-Enfield).
After the US started using 5.56mm rounds, the USSR researched it and they came up with the 5.45mm Soviet rounds, for the same reason. These rounds were so effective in the Soviet-Mujahideen War, that they were termed 'poison bullet' by the Mujahideen. Although they never really carried any poison, but were extremely lethal.
Kunal is unnecessarily defending 5.56 where the darling of US forces in afstan and Indian forces is AK- 47 for a personal weapon good at 300 as also at 50 meters. Kills or incapacitates a man.
Kunal is correct. He knows what he is talking about.
In CI operations wounding a terrorist is no use .Since he is back to the wall, you got to kill him or he will kill you. They come for Shahadat and they must be instantly consigned to their wishes.
True, and that is why fully automatics are in use in greater % with COIN units than with regular infantry divisions. It was a common argument that a smaller round injures the enemy. True in long distances, but in close distances, upto 100 ft, the
tumble effect is so severe, one 5.56 bullet simply kills the enemy. To tackle close quarter battles, AKM is good for spraying on the enemy. One bullet is good enough to completely disable the enemy. Even in longer distances, the bullet carries enough power to stop the enemy, but then, accuracy can take a hit.
