Modernisation of Indian Army Infantry

[rkhanna]

Red dot on SIG 716 is injustice to .308 range power. Burris MTAC 1-4x24 or similar scopes are not too expensive and provide stellar performance at 800 yards. Red dots are good for AR-15 and similar platforms but beyond 400 yards, the dot is too big for practical purposes.

Questions to be asked:

1\ Do we believe an average Infantry grunt will be able to engage targets at 800yards/700meters successfully or efficiently? Thats DM range. IMO waste of moeny giving higher powered scopes to all shooters

2\ Average enagegment range for Infantry will continue to be 50m-150/200ms in almost all terrains. Engaging targets beyond this will fall on the DM and Squad LMG/MMG Gunner and will be supression fire primarily. again IMO does not justify the cost of distributing higher powered scopes across infantry.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

It still looks ugly, and what's the barrel life of these things???

Barrel life is about 7000 rounds.
About 50% life remains in most Dragunov barrels. That is why Aarmy became interested in upgrading these rifles.

 

[rkhanna]

Barrel life is about 7000 rounds.
About 50% life remains in most Dragunov barrels. That is why Aarmy became interested in upgrading these rifles.

Dragnovs will continue to be in inventory as it's a great deniable ops weapon and fits the bill in urban ops perfectly fine.

Similarly with the Galatz - the folding butt makes it very conducive for covert and airborne ops

 

[bhramos]

 

[bhramos]

 

[MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00]

Can you repost this is in the Techincal Thread?

Improvised Fighting Vehicles and Armour/Technicals/Gun Trucks & Buses/ VBIEDs Opinions, Discussions & Multimedia

An Improvised fighting vehicle or Non-standard tactical vehicle is an ad hoc combat vehicle resulting from a modified or upgraded civilian or military non-combat vehicle, often constructed and employed by Civilian insurgents, Terrorists, Rebels, Guerrillas, Resistance movements or other forms of...

defenceforumindia.com

 

[Unknowncommando 2]

 

[Unknowncommando 2]

 

[Wisemarko]

Questions to be asked:

1\ Do we believe an average Infantry grunt will be able to engage targets at 800yards/700meters successfully or efficiently? Thats DM range. IMO waste of moeny giving higher powered scopes to all shooters

2\ Average enagegment range for Infantry will continue to be 50m-150/200ms in almost all terrains. Engaging targets beyond this will fall on the DM and Squad LMG/MMG Gunner and will be supression fire primarily. again IMO does not justify the cost of distributing higher powered scopes across infantry.

1. With right technology, average grunt can perform his best. That’s the goal. With right scope hitting an 800 yard target is as easy as hitting a 200 yard target with iron sights. It’s never a waste to provide your soldiers the right equipment.

2. I doubt the role of these battle rifles was ever to engage at short ranges. Although SIGs can do just fine at any range, AK derivatives are much better choice at ranges up to 200 meters. They cost less, carry lethal stoping power, fire faster with less recoil and one can carry more 7.62x39 rounds compared to bulky .308.

In a short range fight, AK with 30 round mags can outclass heavy and slow firing SIG with 20 round mags. That was the reason for many militaries to move to assault rifles such as M-16 and AK-47 from M-14, FN-FAL and G3 to improve short range effectiveness.

SIG 716/Patrol rifles are made to achieve one shot one kill for average shooter at extended ranges. Not using that potential is a waste. Using it for anything else is a compromise.

 

[rkhanna]

1. With right technology, average grunt can perform his best. That’s the goal. With right scope hitting an 800 yard target is as easy as hitting a 200 yard target with iron sights. It’s never a waste to provide your soldiers the right equipment.

2. I doubt the role of these battle rifles was ever to engage at short ranges. Although SIGs can do just fine at any range, AK derivatives are much better choice at ranges up to 200 meters. They cost less, carry lethal stoping power, fire faster with less recoil and one can carry more 7.62x39 rounds compared to bulky .308.

In a short range fight, AK with 30 round mags can outclass heavy and slow firing SIG with 20 round mags. That was the reason for many militaries to move to assault rifles such as M-16 and AK-47 from M-14, FN-FAL and G3 to improve short range effectiveness.

SIG 716/Patrol rifles are made to achieve one shot one kill for average shooter at extended ranges. Not using that potential is a waste. Using it for anything else is a compromise.

1) technology without training is pointless. Training to take effective shots out at 800 yards is something even militaries with higher budgets will struggle.

Like I said what is the sop if engaged at extreme ranges ? Long gun and SAW gunner will engage for one of two possibilities a) the rest of the squad manouvers closer or the squat retreats and breaks contact. Trading bullets at 800 yards is a waste of ammo.

2) the role of battle rifles are to be to used jn battle. Avg infantry engagement takes place between 50-200 m. Average infantrymen is trained for that battlespace. There isn't enough time and money to train for more. Reality of life. In india as much as in America

3) using your hypothesis of technology at short range using tech why pick an AK? 556 does perfectly fine. The reason we like the AK in india js because it can do auto fire and is a far better platform for COIN compared to the INSAS. Better trained troops however end up picking the 556 ( tavor / M4)

4) about lethality of stopping power argument gets overly simplified by people and quoted out of context.

Putting high-powered scopes on all SIGs is IMO a waste of money - money that we don't have

 

[rkhanna]

1. With right technology, average grunt can perform his best. That’s the goal. With right scope hitting an 800 yard target is as easy as hitting a 200 yard target with iron sights. It’s never a waste to provide your soldiers the right equipment.

2. I doubt the role of these battle rifles was ever to engage at short ranges. Although SIGs can do just fine at any range, AK derivatives are much better choice at ranges up to 200 meters. They cost less, carry lethal stoping power, fire faster with less recoil and one can carry more 7.62x39 rounds compared to bulky .308.

In a short range fight, AK with 30 round mags can outclass heavy and slow firing SIG with 20 round mags. That was the reason for many militaries to move to assault rifles such as M-16 and AK-47 from M-14, FN-FAL and G3 to improve short range effectiveness.

SIG 716/Patrol rifles are made to achieve one shot one kill for average shooter at extended ranges. Not using that potential is a waste. Using it for anything else is a compromise.

Good read on the science of 762/39 Vs 556/45

5.56x45 vs 7.62x39 - Cartridge Comparison - Sniper Country

You want to know which rifle cartridge is the best for your needs? Our expert fully tested the 5.56×45 vs 7.62×39.

www.snipercountry.com

Notice 2 things.

1) Calibre of bullet is less important than Quality of bullet.

2) notice what happens to bullet velocity post 200m

3) 556 has higher better ballistic coefficient and upto 200m have the same trajectory as 762

4) 762 has higher kinetic energy but also bleeds that energy at a higher rate

5) infact what the above article concluds that at shorter ranges the 762 is more effective (stopping power) and at longer ranges the 556 (flatter trajectory)

6) my observation - our history with 556 gets coloured bexause of 2 reasons

- shiite Quality of manufacturing of ammo
- crappy platform (INSAS) for the range of combat we do

 

[Wisemarko]

1) technology without training is pointless. Training to take effective shots out at 800 yards is something even militaries with higher budgets will struggle.

Like I said what is the sop if engaged at extreme ranges ? Long gun and SAW gunner will engage for one of two possibilities a) the rest of the squad manouvers closer or the squat retreats and breaks contact. Trading bullets at 800 yards is a waste of ammo.

2) the role of battle rifles are to be to used jn battle. Avg infantry engagement takes place between 50-200 m. Average infantrymen is trained for that battlespace. There isn't enough time and money to train for more. Reality of life. In india as much as in America

3) using your hypothesis of technology at short range using tech why pick an AK? 556 does perfectly fine. The reason we like the AK in india js because it can do auto fire and is a far better platform for COIN compared to the INSAS. Better trained troops however end up picking the 556 ( tavor / M4)

4) about lethality of stopping power argument gets overly simplified by people and quoted out of context.

Putting high-powered scopes on all SIGs is IMO a waste of money - money that we don't have

If goal is to engage not beyond 200 meters then why buy SIG 716 and waste any money? Battle rifles were never designed for sub 200 meter engagements. A quick search on history of battle rifles would confirm that.

Both AK or AR-15 are much better suited for that range in every known requirement. A soldier equipped with battle rifle at short ranges is at serious disadvantage against enemy equipped with assault rifle such as M-16/AK-47.
I only mentioned AK because Indian army does not use AR-15 platforms.

Training on scopes: Obviously you don’t seem familiar with any scopes used on .308 platforms so can’t discuss any further about how they are used.

Training on scopes is quite easy and with just a few hours of training a novice can hit <2 MOA up to 800 yards. (With rifles like SIG 716 using standard ammo. Match grade ammo can achieve much better MOA.)

Arguing about this further is pointless.

 

[ManhattanProject]

If goal is to engage not beyond 200 meters then why buy SIG 716 and waste any money? Battle rifles were never designed for sub 200 meter engagements. A quick search on history of battle rifles would confirm that.

Both AK or AR-15 are much better suited for that range in every known requirement. A soldier equipped with battle rifle at short ranges is at serious disadvantage against enemy equipped with assault rifle such as M-16/AK-47.
I only mentioned AK because Indian army does not use AR-15 platforms.

Training on scopes: Obviously you don’t seem familiar with any scopes used on .308 platforms so can’t discuss any further about how they are used.

Training on scopes is quite easy and with just a few hours of training a novice can hit <2 MOA up to 800 yards. (With rifles like SIG 716 using standard ammo. Match grade ammo can achieve much better MOA.)

Arguing about this further is pointless.

2moa 800 yards in few hours?
i dont think so bro, long range shooting is an art that can only be perfected by practice and repetition.
I am not saying dont give them scopes but you are taking the whole long range thing too lightly.

 

[rkhanna]

If goal is to engage not beyond 200 meters then why buy SIG 716 and waste any money? Battle rifles were never designed for sub 200 meter engagements. A quick search on history of battle rifles would confirm that

There is no Goal. The reality of combat is that soldiers are trained to what they are most likely to face. and Most likely they will always engage the enemy from 50m to 200m. Beyond that like i stated IA SOP would be the bring in additional firepower to either manouver closer to break contact. Lobbing ammo from 800m is a waste of ammo unless you are Talibanny

Design of a product and its ultimate end use are not always correlated. While a traditional def of a battle rifle is a full powered carterage today that line item in Orbat is routinely filled by M4s, AKs, HK636s, FAMAS, INSAS.

Both AK or AR-15 are much better suited for that range in every known requirement. A soldier equipped with battle rifle at short ranges is at serious disadvantage against enemy equipped with assault rifle such as M-16/AK-47.
I only mentioned AK because Indian army does not use AR-15 platforms.

Agreed. Why the IA went for 762NATO is anobodies guess but the Army also wants 762/39 and 556/45 so your guess is as good as mine. The Americans seem to be working towards the 6.8mm hybrid solution.

So Far various subunits in IA has put the SIG through its paces and they seem very happy with it.

Training on scopes: Obviously you don’t seem familiar with any scopes used on .308 platforms so can’t discuss any further about how they are used.

Training on scopes is quite easy and with just a few hours of training a novice can hit <2 MOA up to 800 yards. (With rifles like SIG 716 using standard ammo. Match grade ammo can achieve much better MOA.)

Arguing about this further is pointless.

I received my Scout Shooting Merit Badge when i was 18. Along with the Scout Masters we had a USMC Small Arms Instructor and it was conducted at Yokota AFB, Japan. My merit badge was earned on a Winchester .22LR both with a 4x Scope and iron sites. I have also hunted a bit in Canada apart from spending time at ranges with friends who had been shooting since they were 6. So while i am not an expert at anything i understand a wee bit.

You cannot train anybody in 3 hours to shoot accurately and consitantly on any firearm (even if they are naturals). Training on Scopes is incredibly hard specially when you start going out to 700-1000m distances.

Secondly doing target practice is onething. Getting an average soldier to undertake accurate fire out to 800m under contact after having spent 3-4hrs patroling with combat load in desert/jungle/ravine etc terrain is a whole different thing. It requires hrs and hrs and 1000s of rounds of ammo to train that soldier where he should be learning to shoot and manourver with his squad.

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[Tactical Doge]

I remember CDS general Rawat talking about those, didn't get much of it though

 

[Wisemarko]

2moa 800 yards in few hours?
i dont think so bro, long range shooting is an art that can only be perfected by practice and repetition.
I am not saying dont give them scopes but you are taking the whole long range thing too lightly.

Here, some of my colleagues teach here:
800 meter engagements for anyone who knows how to handle a weapon.

ADVANCED | Firearms Training Associates

www.ftatv.com

Sounds like the thinking here is stuck in times before right optics, match ammunition and plateform were readily available.

 

[ManhattanProject]

Here, some of my colleagues teach here:
800 meter engagements for anyone who knows how to handle a weapon.

ADVANCED | Firearms Training Associates

www.ftatv.com

Sounds like the thinking here is stuck in times before right optics, match ammunition and plateform were readily available.

Yes people can shoot upto 800 in perfect conditions and a expert marksman beside you giving you the hold.
In real life wind, temperature, environment plays a huge part in weather you will hit anything.
In real life targets dont just stand there with bright coloured clothes.

 

[Wisemarko]

There is no Goal. The reality of combat is that soldiers are trained to what they are most likely to face. and Most likely they will always engage the enemy from 50m to 200m. Beyond that like i stated IA SOP would be the bring in additional firepower to either manouver closer to break contact. Lobbing ammo from 800m is a waste of ammo unless you are Talibanny

Design of a product and its ultimate end use are not always correlated. While a traditional def of a battle rifle is a full powered carterage today that line item in Orbat is routinely filled by M4s, AKs, HK636s, FAMAS, INSAS.



Agreed. Why the IA went for 762NATO is anobodies guess but the Army also wants 762/39 and 556/45 so your guess is as good as mine. The Americans seem to be working towards the 6.8mm hybrid solution.

So Far various subunits in IA has put the SIG through its paces and they seem very happy with it.




I received my Scout Shooting Merit Badge when i was 18. Along with the Scout Masters we had a USMC Small Arms Instructor and it was conducted at Yokota AFB, Japan. My merit badge was earned on a Winchester .22LR both with a 4x Scope and iron sites. I have also hunted a bit in Canada apart from spending time at ranges with friends who had been shooting since they were 6. So while i am not an expert at anything i understand a wee bit.

You cannot train anybody in 3 hours to shoot accurately and consitantly on any firearm (even if they are naturals). Training on Scopes is incredibly hard specially when you start going out to 700-1000m distances.

Secondly doing target practice is onething. Getting an average soldier to undertake accurate fire out to 800m under contact after having spent 3-4hrs patroling with combat load in desert/jungle/ravine etc terrain is a whole different thing. It requires hrs and hrs and 1000s of rounds of ammo to train that soldier where he should be learning to shoot and manourver with his squad.

Firing 22LR you used a 4x scope and you are asking if scope are needed or not for .308?
Seriously! Why so much BS arguments?

Here’s a reminder of size of those two bullets.


All .308 rifles need a decent scope. If you don’t know that. It’s on you.

 

[Wisemarko]

Yes people can shoot upto 800 in perfect conditions and a expert marksman beside you giving you the hold.
In real life wind, temperature, environment plays a huge part in weather you will hit anything.
In real life targets dont just stand there with bright coloured clothes.

People miss targets at 15 yards even with training- happens with police officers all the time. That does not minimize the importance of training.

Are we seriously arguing that equipping a good rifle with decent scope is unnecessary? C’mon bud