INSAS Rifle, LMG & Carbine

[SafedSagar]

I still don't get it.
1) Which rifle is gonna replace INSAS?
2) What will happen if MCIWS also fails?
3) If the all of competitors of CQB carbines are failed. Whats gonna happen next?
3) If Army needs a multi caliber rifle why Ishapore rifle was developed with a dedicated 7.62mm (i gess) round?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. INSAS 1B1 is being replaced in some unit by INSAS Excalibur, Until MCIWS comes out in mass ..

2. Re-worked and Re-tested ..

3. The Ishapore Rifle is a mid term solution as long as 1B1 is serving by side ..

==========

1B1, Excalibur and Ishapore share common in spare and parts ..

1) Which rifle is gonna replace INSAS?
2) What will happen if MCIWS also fails?
3) If the all of competitors of CQB carbines are failed. Whats gonna happen next?
3) If Army needs a multi caliber rifle why Ishapore rifle was developed with a dedicated 7.62mm (i gess) round?

 

[SafedSagar]

Kunal Sir: Thank you very much for the info. One of my questions remained unanswered (which will not gonna let me sleep lol) if all of competitors of CQB carbines fails, what are the options left with IA? From when we will see Excalibur in our troops hands?
One more little out of context thing. Do you believe Pvt. firms can do something to uplift the position of small arms in India?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

CQB carbine failed in trails it means >>

1. Upgrade of existing firearm until MCIWS get inducted in mass ..
2. Introduce of new weapon which has similar design and spare as previous one ..

Excalibur already inducted in some units, though its mass deployment is yet to be carried out ..

==========

Pvt firms can be extremely useful in quality manufacturing of small arms and upgrading of existing small arms like 1B1s and LMG ..

if all of competitors of CQB carbines fails, what are the options left with IA? From when we will see Excalibur in our troops hands?

One more little out of context thing. Do you believe Pvt. firms can do something to uplift the position of small arms in India?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

INSAS Bayonet mounted on Older 1B1

Older 1B1 in hand of a cadet

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Insas LMG in hands of IA solider

Insas LMG in hands of US solider

 

[Ky Loung]

@Ray

I really don't know what you're talking about Ray. Seriously, I starting to doubt you even hold a gun before.

What is suppression?

Suppression
the action of suppressing something such as an activity or publication.

It not about killing it making sure they don't shoot back. Getting hits on an enemy while in the process of suppressing is icing on the cake. It is the job of SAW gunners friends to do the killing by closing in while the enemy is being suppressed.

When Americans talk about how weak the 5.56 is. They aren't comparing 5.56 to 7.62x39. They are comparing the 5.56 to battle rifle rounds like 7.62x51 NATO, .303, 7.62x54R. Americans want a bigger round that is out of immediate cartridge range (5.56x45, 5.45x39, 7.62x39). They want to switch back to battle rifle cartridge. Second Americans complains about everything. Any less of perfection they whine to high heaven. It is a first world problem.

The 5.56 vs 7.62x39 is pretty much over a long time ago when the Soviet agree with us when they switched to 5.45x39.

You are so hang up on fragmentation. Let me remind you 5.56 fragmentation is design increase the chance of incapacitation. It does not need it to incapacitate. 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 7.62x51NATO, .303, 7.62x54R, etc do not fragment. So for some reason in your mind fragmentation = incapacitation and without fragmentation = can incapacitation.

As I posted the only guarantee of 100% incapacitation is a penetrating hit on the brain. In an absent of that there is no such thing as one shot stop. Not even .50bmg as I posted. When Americans train they train in this philosophy "Shot to Stop". Translation Shoot until your enemy stop moving. From civilians all the way up to military they are all train to keep putting holes into the enemy until he stop moving regardless of calibers.

That's why people train in double tapping, 1-5 drills, etc. to increase survival chance. Getting a hit doesn't mean your enemy die or surrender. In fact what we expect them to do is drag us to hell with them. We expect our foes to kill fighting until their last breath because that is what we would done.

There are many many example of people fighting to the end and I just posted one link above. However here is another. The Miami Shootout the second most famous shootout in America history. Even with so much injuries o one surrender, everybody fought to the last breath.

The Gun Zone -- FBI Miami Firefight

Everybody in American that have proper firearm training trained in "shot to stop". From civilian to cops to military, they will not stop shooting until their opponent stop moving.

Double Tap Drills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbPKzL0GZjE

Even the Japanese understand it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Zaz28WE9M

Delta Room Cleaning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRRMFVZXBls

1-5 Drill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCpOt9xVy4

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Seriously, You are going too far ..

@Ray

I really don't know what you're talking about Ray. Seriously, I starting to doubt you even hold a gun before.

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

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

--

An Example >

Shot from a 18-20inch barrel from 50 meters, Entrance wound is on the inner thigh, exit is the huge stellate laceration seen on the outer thigh. Based on the xray view of the femur bone, bone was NOT hit, but broke most probably due to the temporary stretch cavity created by the considerable hydraulic shock wave the 5.56mm cartridge is known to create. typical fragmentation that occurs when the bullet impacts human flesh at velocities in excess of 2700 fps. the size of the wound is not a surprise.The white specks are the fragments of the 55 grain 5.56mm M193 ball ammo.

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


The test shows as per US Army the effect of 5.56mm ( 62gr ) is nearly same a 7.62x51mm ..

When Americans talk about how weak the 5.56 is. They aren't comparing 5.56 to 7.62x39. They are comparing the 5.56 to battle rifle rounds like 7.62x51 NATO, .303, 7.62x54R. Americans want a bigger round that is out of immediate cartridge range (5.56x45, 5.45x39, 7.62x39). They want to switch back to battle rifle cartridge. Second Americans complains about everything. Any less of perfection they whine to high heaven. It is a first world problem.

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

5.56mm is not anymore Nam`s 5.56mm, So does 7.62m43 ..

The 5.56 vs 7.62x39 is pretty much over a long time ago

 

[Ray]

@Ray

I really don't know what you're talking about Ray. Seriously, I starting to doubt you even hold a gun before.

What is suppression?

Suppression
the action of suppressing something such as an activity or publication.

It not about killing it making sure they don't shoot back. Getting hits on an enemy while in the process of suppressing is icing on the cake. It is the job of SAW gunners friends to do the killing by closing in while the enemy is being suppressed.

When Americans talk about how weak the 5.56 is. They aren't comparing 5.56 to 7.62x39. They are comparing the 5.56 to battle rifle rounds like 7.62x51 NATO, .303, 7.62x54R. Americans want a bigger round that is out of immediate cartridge range (5.56x45, 5.45x39, 7.62x39). They want to switch back to battle rifle cartridge. Second Americans complains about everything. Any less of perfection they whine to high heaven. It is a first world problem.

The 5.56 vs 7.62x39 is pretty much over a long time ago when the Soviet agree with us when they switched to 5.45x39.

You are so hang up on fragmentation. Let me remind you 5.56 fragmentation is design increase the chance of incapacitation. It does not need it to incapacitate. 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 7.62x51NATO, .303, 7.62x54R, etc do not fragment. So for some reason in your mind fragmentation = incapacitation and without fragmentation = can incapacitation.

As I posted the only guarantee of 100% incapacitation is a penetrating hit on the brain. In an absent of that there is no such thing as one shot stop. Not even .50bmg as I posted. When Americans train they train in this philosophy "Shot to Stop". Translation Shoot until your enemy stop moving. From civilians all the way up to military they are all train to keep putting holes into the enemy until he stop moving regardless of calibers.

That's why people train in double tapping, 1-5 drills, etc. to increase survival chance. Getting a hit doesn't mean your enemy die or surrender. In fact what we expect them to do is drag us to hell with them. We expect our foes to kill fighting until their last breath because that is what we would done.

There are many many example of people fighting to the end and I just posted one link above. However here is another. The Miami Shootout the second most famous shootout in America history. Even with so much injuries o one surrender, everybody fought to the last breath.

The Gun Zone -- FBI Miami Firefight

Everybody in American that have proper firearm training trained in "shot to stop". From civilian to cops to military, they will not stop shooting until their opponent stop moving.

Of course, you will not understand since you have no practical experience and instead, merely theoretical.

All understand the generic root of the word 'suppression'. It is so evident.

However, in war, while one goes in for 'suppression' as is validated by the concept of 'fire and move', yet, the aim plus is while carrying out suppression, it is not aimless firing or what is called 'pooping off ammunition', but also to get kills in the bargain. A dead enemy is an enemy who cannot kill you and one 'bayonet strength' less to change the combat ratio.

As far your - Seriously, I starting to doubt you even hold a gun before . well, seriously I find you most amusingly delirious being too consumed in yourself. It is a rather vainglorious contention of yours that you alone are the expert in the world spouting theories. Might I say I have given you links too.


As far as all your theories, @Kunal has adequately answered you.

 

[Redhawk]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I am aware of the statistics regarding smaller calibres and that rounds of smaller calibre are just as lethal as rounds of larger calibre; but I would still want a larger, heavier round for a military rifle.

I do know that the mortality rate of those struck by a 7.62 mm NATO round from an FN FAL rifle in its various versions was high in the wars in which it was used. The same goes for older calibres such as the .303-in. British round, the 7.92-mm Mauser round, the .30/06 Springfield round, and the 7.62-mm Russian round.

And because these rounds are bigger the parts for the military small arms that fire them are bigger and easier to clean and maintain. 5.56-mm rifles and light machine guns have small, fiddly parts because of the smaller rounds they fire and because the parts are smaller, they are harder to clean.

When the Australian Army started using the M-16 in South Vietnam in 1965/66, Australian soldiers complained that they had to clean the weapon at least 5 times a days to keep it serviceable. The M-16, said some Australian soldiers, was "not a good soldier's rifle". It has improved since then, and it would want to, but many who had to use it, did not trust it and disliked it, and that included disliking the smaller calibre of the 5.56-mm round that it fired.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. The main reason 5.56mm is much liked above is the weight and the size, A person can carry more round of 5.56mm than carrying 7.62Nato, 5.56mm of 62 or 64gr are equally impressive as 7.62nato in close to medium ranges against human size targets ..

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

2. 5.56mm is evolving continuously and proving lethal every time .. >>

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..

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

It many be a problem for the user of other rifles, But in our country we have lesser issue as such with our AR 1b1, As its internal are partially based on AK design which is stupid simple to use, Big parts that facilitate easy maintenance, and it needs to be reliable. I like AR-15, M4 but It has tiny parts that are easily lost in the field, things like the firing pin retaining pin. It gets dirty more quickly than other rifles that don't rely on direct impingement to operate the action. But if kept clean and the troops are properly trained, it's a world class military small arm.

And because these rounds are bigger the parts for the military small arms that fire them are bigger and easier to clean and maintain. 5.56-mm rifles and light machine guns have small, fiddly parts because of the smaller rounds they fire and because the parts are smaller, they are harder to clean.

When the Australian Army started using the M-16 in South Vietnam in 1965/66, Australian soldiers complained that they had to clean the weapon at least 5 times a days to keep it serviceable. The M-16, said some Australian soldiers, was "not a good soldier's rifle". It has improved since then, and it would want to, but many who had to use it, did not trust it and disliked it, and that including disliking the smaller calibre of the 5.56-mm round that it fired.

 

[Ray]

One of the reasons why 7.62 is liked is because 7.62mm has greater 'effective' range (800-1000m vs. 600m or so).

Fear factor of the closing in enemy?

 

[Redhawk]

One of the reasons why 7.62 is liked is because 7.62mm has greater 'effective' range (800-1000m vs. 600m or so).

Fear factor of the closing in enemy?

Well, if one can outreach the enemy, so much the better. But I don't think range comes into it much except for sniping or indirect fire. 7.62 mm is a better calibre because it is a more powerful round and has a higher mortality rate among those hit, whether at 10 m or 100 m. A full-powered 7.62-mm round performs better being fired through vegetation and other cover than does a smaller calibre and less powerful round. In close country such as jungle or heavily forested areas or in built-up areas one would rarely engage a target at more than 50 m at an absolute maximum, except for sniping, and more likely at 20 m or less, at which range a calibre's effective range is academic. In a close-quarter battle, even a sub-machine gun is useful, but I'd rather be armed with a semi-automatic rifle that fires a heavy, hard round that I know will kill the target once it has been hit, and not just wound.

 

[Redhawk]

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.

Well, this would seem to destroy my previous argument. But for all the testing done by the U.S. Army into comparing calibres and cartridges, I would still feel more confident and secure with a full-powered round such as 7.62 mm x 51 mm NATO or any of the other old cartridges of the main belligerents from the First and Second World Wars, e.g. .303 in. British, 7.92 mm Mauser, .30/06 Springfield, 7.62 mm Russian. If one is hit with any of these older military cartridges at short to medium range, one stays hit.

Failing that, my next choice would be to be armed with an assault rifle with an "intermediate" cartridge but in the usual full military calibre, e.g. 7.92 mm x 33 mm which the Germans used in the progenitor of all "assault rifles" the StG-44 and the 7.62 mm x 39 mm used in the AK-47/AKM series of assault rifles and associated light machine guns, or the Czech 7.62 mm x 45 mm round likewise used in the Czech-designed and -produced Vz-58 assault rifle and associated light machine guns. I'd prefer to be armed with a weapon firing any of these cartridges before I would use any weapon firing 5.56 mm x 45 mm NATO or the 5.45 mm range of cartridges produced by the then Soviets and now the Russians, and the Chinese equivalent, whatever it is.

My preference for these cartridges and the weapons that fire them is more psychologically rooted than any appreciation of the purely scientific and statistical differences, which according to the above quote of the U.S. Army's study, do not much exist: there is no superior round at ranges up to 50 m. Be that as it may, I'd still feel better going into battle armed with rifle or machine gun in .30 calibre/7.62 mm or over than going into battle armed with a rifle in .223 in./5.56 mm which cartridge was originally designed to shoot and kill vermin-sized game, such as rabbits, and not people.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I take out a .308, 7.62x39, 5.45x39 and a 5.56mm rifle to see how each of these rounds fair in the woods against modestly sized trees. For those worried about the welfare of the trees, they're getting cut down in the spring to make room for more ranges and will be used for fire wood. It's rough being a tree, I know.

Well, if one can outreach the enemy, so much the better. But I don't think range comes into it much except for sniping or indirect fire. 7.62 mm is a better calibre because it is a more powerful round and has a higher mortality rate among those hit, whether at 10 m or 100 m. A full-powered 7.62-mm round performs better being fired through vegetation and other cover than does a smaller calibre and less powerful round. In close country such as jungle or heavily forested areas or in built-up areas one would rarely engage a target at more than 50 m at an absolute maximum, except for sniping, and more likely at 20 m or less, at which range a calibre's effective range is academic. In a close-quarter battle, even a sub-machine gun is useful, but I'd rather be armed with a semi-automatic rifle that fires a heavy, hard round that I know will kill the target once it has been hit, and not just wound.

 

[Redhawk]

That's interesting, but is it an accurate comparison? You decide!

 

[Redhawk]

For one man's comparison of the 7.62 mm NATO round and the 5.56 mm NATO round, watch these bizarre videos, if you can be bothered.

 

[Redhawk]

Actually the man who made the videos "NATO Ammunition 7.62mm vs 5.56mm Parts I-IV" does make some valid points if you can listen through all his pontificating, egotistical blather.

The only statements of worth the man makes in all his 4 videos could have been put into a single video of 10 or 15 minutes, tops.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Mac is better than most over net & i believe you noted most of the points in other vids you posted ..

In above all, 5.56mm is best suited for regular Infantry, It can be different for SF or Civilian use ..

That's interesting, but is it an accurate comparison? You decide!

 

[Ajnabi]

In above all, 5.56mm is best suited for regular Infantry, It can be different for SF or Civilian use ..

"The military must change the caliber and cartridge of the guns it gives infantry soldiers. Stoner's little 5.56-mm cartridge was ideal for softening the recoil of World War II infantry calibers in order to allow fully automatic fire. But today's cartridge is simply too small for modern combat. Its lack of mass limits its range to less than 400 meters. The optimum caliber for tomorrow's rifle is between 6.5 and 7 millimeters."
Source: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/