Modernisation of Indian Army Infantry

[Killbot]

No soldier is interested in the cocking mechanism the SIG introduced. That's why your avg soldier still wants a AK if he gets an option. Some even goes onto say that had the INSAS had better quality and a bigger round they would have been happy.
Problem is our officers and soldiers don't want to change. I heard someone saying how one has to move the rifle away of the target to cock the Sig while that was not the case with AK/INSAS

Well they can be trained to use the AR-10 platform. If that is done I guarantee they will prefer it to the AK. They just need to be trained to use the bolt release properly. Which cannot be done effectively if you waste time training them on 2 different platforms.

Fyi, bolt release is a little button on the left side of the rifle on top of magazine well. You just need to press it and the bolt will cock itself. No need to pull the charging handle. Much, much quicker than AK mechanism.

AR designs fail in cold weather which is where we will fighting against Pakistanis and Chinese along the Himalayas.

SIG 716 is being used in the Himalayas. Army wants more of those. There was even talk of equipping the entire infantry with the SIG.

This is an outdated argument imo. The M4s performed well in Afghanistan after the US manufacturers ironed out some chinks.

For our mechanised units, a folding AK 203 is sufficient since the Ukraine War has shown that AFV/APCs when dismounting troops can only allow for engagements upto 200-300 m effectively.

It's not like they absolutely need folding rifles. And also, a 5.56 with the right grainage (say 77gr) not only will be satisfactory at 200-300m, it will enable a soldier to engage beyond said ranges if necessary. The smaller, lighter round also enables carrying of more ammo. High volume suppressing fire would be more effective for non infantry troops.
Because it enables then to keep the enemy away till some sort of QRT comes to their rescue (I'm assuming non infantry troops because that's who will be equipped with the 5.56/AK. For eg tank crew of a disabled tank. Or chopper crew of crashed chopper.)

For frontline fighters (I.e. infantry), exclusively equip them with SIGs. I don't see the disadvantage of this.

Also mechanised infantry are equipped the same as the rest of infantry. Considering they have been using INSAS so far, they won't have any issues with the SIG imo. They also need the ability to engage at long ranges.

With 140,000 Sig 716i and 14,679 Negev LMG plus some AK 203 thrown in you can equip the entire Northern Command.

Why add the AK-203s? The Northern, Eastern and Western commands will have better use for the SIG 716s.

Northern and Eastern commands are mostly high altitudes areas. So SIG 716 is already being used. Western command has a desert and plains. Which means lots of open ground. You can't go wrong with a long range gun. And wherever the necessity for AK-203 is currently being projected, AR-15 platform rifle can be used. Or at the very least use a local alternative. Like I said $1100 for a mass produced 7.62 AK is absolutely absurd.

And @AUSTERLITZ my point is, regardless of whether the 7.62 Soviet ballistics in 200-300m are nominally better than 5.56 at the sane range:

A) 5.56 is satisfactory
B) by opting for the 7.62 you are handicapping the soldiers in any engagement beyond 300m. And given our geography, 300-400m is where most of the fighting will happen.

Another thing to consider is that the Chinks will probably equip their infantry with level 4 ballistic protection in the near future. The only caliber capable of beating level 4 plates is 7.62 NATO at short range. The rest will be useless. Even Pakistan will follow suit in a decade or so. Then the AKs will become even more redundant. Better to equip entire infantry with SIG and the rest with 5.56. Better for logistics too.

Also for those who are worried about the dimensions of the SIG, it's not that much bigger or heavier than the AK.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

The rise of body Armor effects 7.62x39 too and in many cases much more than 5.56

Difference is mild. Penetration of 5.56 is higher, but 7.62 yaw is more reliable than 5.56 fracturing. At the end of the day, it is a safe choice. I would have preferred 5.56, but no prejudice against 7.62.

 

[BlackViking]

They just need to be trained to use the bolt release properly.

They don't want to, they are resistant to change. It has to be forced, from the top.

Also one question. Do we import 7.62 NATO? Soldiers aren't getting much training on the SiGs, as I have observed.

 

[Killbot]

They don't want to, they are resistant to change. It has to be forced, from the top.

Also one question. Do we import 7.62 NATO? Soldiers aren't getting much training on the SiGs, as I have observed.

Army issues tender for 7.62mm ammunition from private sector

RFI also specifies annual requirement of the various types, some of them running into 1-2 million rounds.

www.google.com

Its not mentioned whether this is about 7.62 NATO or Soviet.

I also recall that SIG had to supply some ammo along with the rifles initially. So probably imported for now. But RFI used to make 7.62*51 in the 70s and 80s. So setting up a modern 7.62 factory shouldn't be a problem.

As per quoted article MoD is looking at private sector for the same (setting up factory). I don't know about how far this has progressed.

 

[abingdonboy]

Show me where infantry on infantry engagement happens beyond 200-300 yrds(at which distances AK is as good or even better than AR) except in mountains for which we have SIG.Even then for mountaintop assaults you will need AKs.
Beyond 200-300 metres you need magnifier optics for proper shots.Army doesnt have funds to equip whole infantry with magnifier optics.If you go new gen 6.8 not only you have to set up whole new ammo chain,and the 6.8mm ammo is way more costly one on one as well..plus you have new gen 30,000 $ optic mandatory.Its not possible beyond special forces.
Also NATO 5.56 doesnt have penetrating power beyond 300 metres to penetrate chinese body armour ,so accuracy is worthless.Rise of body armour is why USA ditched 5.56.Our enemies dont have and wont have 6.8 ,so AK is perfectly fine for us.
The 1100 $ price is including setting up plant and transfer of knowledge.And again AK is not a 'junk' rifle.A properly made AK is a deadly rifle for the general infantryman.It is still the most trusted weapon by IA infantry.AR fanboys do a lot of precision firing on the range and think when the bullets and shells are flying you will have all the luxury to set up ,take careful aim and do all the fancy grips.Watch the footage from ukraine or from LOC.Its mostly quick aim and spray,then cover.Distances are hardly above 300 mtrs.

Like I said, show me a modern army that uses the 7.62*39 round as their standard issue- those with the actual war fighting experience and money aren’t buying it. It’s only backwards dirt poor nations who aren’t expecting to fight any conventional wars. Not even Russia uses this round


to defend this decision is mind boggling.

 

[Love Charger]

Like I said, show me a modern army that uses the 7.62*39 round as their standard issue- those with the actual war fighting experience and money aren’t buying it. It’s only backwards dirt poor nations who aren’t expecting to fight any conventional wars. Not even Russia uses this round


to defend this decision is mind boggling.

Tell me honestly sir , would you like SLR over ak 203 , if those are the only two guns army is allowed to induct?

 

[Immanuel]

Like I said, show me a modern army that uses the 7.62*39 round as their standard issue- those with the actual war fighting experience and money aren’t buying it. It’s only backwards dirt poor nations who aren’t expecting to fight any conventional wars. Not even Russia uses this round


to defend this decision is mind boggling.

Finland,

 

[binayak95]

Difference is mild. Penetration of 5.56 is higher, but 7.62 yaw is more reliable than 5.56 fracturing. At the end of the day, it is a safe choice. I would have preferred 5.56, but no prejudice against 7.62.

I am old school. Nothing less than 7.62X51 does it for me. But the new SIG M5 with its 6.8X51 seems FANTASTIC

 

[binayak95]

Like I said, show me a modern army that uses the 7.62*39 round as their standard issue- those with the actual war fighting experience and money aren’t buying it. It’s only backwards dirt poor nations who aren’t expecting to fight any conventional wars. Not even Russia uses this round


to defend this decision is mind boggling.

Oh come on. Vietnam uses the 7.62AK, Finland does as well. Its an acceptable round when youre fighting at ranges not exceeding 300m. Beyond that, the round's tendency to tumble causes issues with accuracy but whats your average engagement range for infantry shoulder fired weapons anyway?

Unless you have serious ACOG or LPVO scopes on your rifles, say like the M27IAR or the new SIG M5s, you wont be hitting anything that far out anyway.

And if your doctrine calls for long range engagement, get proper 18+ inch barrel rifles, with 7.62 NATO or something in that class to do your fighting. Every other mid sized calibre will perform at less than optimum

 

[Immanuel]

Oh come on. Vietnam uses the 7.62AK, Finland does as well. Its an acceptable round when youre fighting at ranges not exceeding 300m. Beyond that, the round's tendency to tumble causes issues with accuracy but whats your average engagement range for infantry shoulder fired weapons anyway?

Unless you have serious ACOG or LPVO scopes on your rifles, say like the M27IAR or the new SIG M5s, you wont be hitting anything that far out anyway.

And if your doctrine calls for long range engagement, get proper 18+ inch barrel rifles, with 7.62 NATO or something in that class to do your fighting. Every other mid sized calibre will perform at less than optimum

Exactly why we got Sig-716 for longer range engagements specially in the mountains, it makes sense to have 7.62*39 for regular infantry assaulters (usually engage at 300 m or less) due to it's stopping power and it's not like we aren't keeping 5.56 for carbines or SF (oops my bad rag tag infantry)

It's also not like IA didn't have any experience in the field with 5.56 since before Kargil 98-till 22 (i.e 24 years, 1 limited war at extremely rough terrain & high altitude, 30K+ enemy killed during this period, countless deployments to Siachen or along the LAC) But again some people simp so hard for 'Modern' armies with 5.56, advance optics, comtacs, uavs, APC, AFVs, jets, stealth but can't win a war since World War-2 and drop everything and run like they got diarrhea when piss poor AK (7.62*39) wielding unwashed abdul Talibunnies show up. Not only that they leave their entire arsenal there, they get home, check their underwears for dudu stains and replace the 5.56 with 6.8mm.

Some mighty modern armies those are.

Some people can moan all day without any orgasmatrons or perhaps some things are permanently vibrating where the sun don't shine, not sure..but it's quite the feat.

 

[abingdonboy]

Finland,

View attachment 168311

I was waiting for this. What does it prove? What is the last war Finland fought? Most of their military are conscripts

besides the finish did this properly- they took the AK platform and enhanced it domestically. India is taking a junk rifle, downgrading it and issuing to 700,000 soldiers. AK-203’s top rail won’t even be able to hold zero after firing a few mags, what an impressive modernisation effort

 

[Johny_Baba]

I was waiting for this. What does it prove? What is the last war Finland fought? Most of their military are conscripts

besides the finish did this properly- they took the AK platform and enhanced it domestically. India is taking a junk rifle, downgrading it and issuing to 700,000 soldiers. AK-203’s top rail won’t even be able to hold zero after firing a few mags, what an impressive modernisation effort

Relax sir the '203 and that series AKs probably have solved issues with top mounted optical sight not retaining zero etc with newer locking mechanism that straightly locks it-fixes it with receiver itself instead of using recoil spring tab for that purpose like in older AKs;
the only gripe i have how come we did not do same thing here with same effing AK that we make here, that Ghatak, Trichy and what not
The only reason AK-203 is happening is because Rahul Gandhi made big promises of serkari jobs to his constituency people of Amethi and then UPA govt started those deals and stuff with the Russians; post defeat of UPA in 2014 current ruling govt is just moving it ahead with '103 replaced with modern version '203 - everything else just revolves around that (that aim of muh replacing different AKs in service with a common platform aka bringign standardisation there too)

 

[Killbot]

Exactly why we got Sig-716 for longer range engagements specially in the mountains, it makes sense to have 7.62*39 for regular infantry assaulters (usually engage at 300 m or less) due to it's stopping power and it's not like we aren't keeping 5.56 for carbines or SF (oops my bad rag tag infantry)

It's also not like IA didn't have any experience in the field with 5.56 since before Kargil 98-till 22 (i.e 24 years, 1 limited war at extremely rough terrain & high altitude, 30K+ enemy killed during this period, countless deployments to Siachen or along the LAC) But again some people simp so hard for 'Modern' armies with 5.56, advance optics, comtacs, uavs, APC, AFVs, jets, stealth but can't win a war since World War-2 and drop everything and run like they got diarrhea when piss poor AK (7.62*39) wielding unwashed abdul Talibunnies show up. Not only that they leave their entire arsenal there, they get home, check their underwears for dudu stains and replace the 5.56 with 6.8mm.

Some mighty modern armies those are.

Some people can moan all day without any orgasmatrons or perhaps some things are permanently vibrating where the sun don't shine, not sure..but it's quite the feat.

Regarding IA's experience, they used 5.56 INSAS, not NATO. The Paras seem content with Tavors and M4s across the board. Which suggests that the problem is the inefficacy of our ammo, not the concept itself.

Even the Russkies you seem to love so much have stuck with 5.45mm.

Also how are you going to decide who gets AKs and who gets SIGs? Because during wartime all available units will fight on the same front. And in all those fronts there is ample open ground (Himalayas, western mountains, plains, desert etc etc), which means a long range, more powerful round (I.e. 7.62 NATO) will be the most effective. So it makes sense for the infantry to be equipped exclusively with SIGs.

If you distribute both AKs and SIGs in a single unit, it's going to be a logistical nightmare. There is also the training issue I mentioned in my previous posts.

The point of equipping the rest of the army with 5.56mm, specifically AR-15 pattern rifle, is:

A) training and disassembly commonality with already present AR-10.
B) satisfactory performance at short ranges
C) performance at medium range (300-500m). 7.62×39 can't do fuckall at this range. What if a non infantry soldier has to engage an anemy at beyond even 250m? Which is a very likely scenario. He would be better served with an AR-15.

Also stop beating the Taliban drum for everything. Yes, the US military embarrassed themselves majorly, but they didn't get everything wrong. The M4 was not one of their mistakes. It worked perfectly fine against the Taliban. The reason they're dropping it is to have an edge over China and Russia. Who use level 4 body Armour. Which is also why IA is using the SIG 716. Or is everybody a dumbass (including IA)?

 

[Automatic Kalashnikov]

 

[OFBkaRakhwala]

Regarding IA's experience, they used 5.56 INSAS, not NATO. The Paras seem content with Tavors and M4s across the board. Which suggests that the problem is the inefficacy of our ammo, not the concept itself.

Even the Russkies you seem to love so much have stuck with 5.45mm.

Also how are you going to decide who gets AKs and who gets SIGs? Because during wartime all available units will fight on the same front. And in all those fronts there is ample open ground (Himalayas, western mountains, plains, desert etc etc), which means a long range, more powerful round (I.e. 7.62 NATO) will be the most effective. So it makes sense for the infantry to be equipped exclusively with SIGs.

If you distribute both AKs and SIGs in a single unit, it's going to be a logistical nightmare. There is also the training issue I mentioned in my previous posts.

The point of equipping the rest of the army with 5.56mm, specifically AR-15 pattern rifle, is:

A) training and disassembly commonality with already present AR-10.
B) satisfactory performance at short ranges
C) performance at medium range (300-500m). 7.62×39 can't do fuckall at this range. What if a non infantry soldier has to engage an anemy at beyond even 250m? Which is a very likely scenario. He would be better served with an AR-15.

Also stop beating the Taliban drum for everything. Yes, the US military embarrassed themselves majorly, but they didn't get everything wrong. The M4 was not one of their mistakes. It worked perfectly fine against the Taliban. The reason they're dropping it is to have an edge over China and Russia. Who use level 4 body Armour. Which is also why IA is using the SIG 716. Or is everybody a dumbass (including IA)?

Gib Sig 716 to everyone else no 5.56 no 7.62 and everyone be happy

 

[Immanuel]

Regarding IA's experience, they used 5.56 INSAS, not NATO. The Paras seem content with Tavors and M4s across the board. Which suggests that the problem is the inefficacy of our ammo, not the concept itself.

Even the Russkies you seem to love so much have stuck with 5.45mm.

Also how are you going to decide who gets AKs and who gets SIGs? Because during wartime all available units will fight on the same front. And in all those fronts there is ample open ground (Himalayas, western mountains, plains, desert etc etc), which means a long range, more powerful round (I.e. 7.62 NATO) will be the most effective. So it makes sense for the infantry to be equipped exclusively with SIGs.

If you distribute both AKs and SIGs in a single unit, it's going to be a logistical nightmare. There is also the training issue I mentioned in my previous posts.

The point of equipping the rest of the army with 5.56mm, specifically AR-15 pattern rifle, is:

A) training and disassembly commonality with already present AR-10.
B) satisfactory performance at short ranges
C) performance at medium range (300-500m). 7.62×39 can't do fuckall at this range. What if a non infantry soldier has to engage an anemy at beyond even 250m? Which is a very likely scenario. He would be better served with an AR-15.

Also stop beating the Taliban drum for everything. Yes, the US military embarrassed themselves majorly, but they didn't get everything wrong. The M4 was not one of their mistakes. It worked perfectly fine against the Taliban. The reason they're dropping it is to have an edge over China and Russia. Who use level 4 body Armour. Which is also why IA is using the SIG 716. Or is everybody a dumbass (including IA)?

Both 5.56 NATO and INSAS round (INSAS rifle fires both) have been deemed insufficient based on experiences over the last 24 years. Army and the men actually fighting prefer (drop the nigga dead) stopping power at ranges 200-300m at which the overwhelming number of close encounters take place. Which is why RR and regular infantry on rotation in Kashmir still use AKs. Even Paras use AK regularly.

What do you mean how are they going to decide who gets what, different rifles will be allocated based on squad/section structure. There are already sections out there using a mix of AKs and Sigs right from the get go.

Logistical nightmare, please, entire commands are teeming with 7.62*39 ammo, that type of ammo is perhaps the most reliable produced by OFB. We import 5.56 NATO since apparently OFB ammo is shitty on that front even local Sig ammo showed higher recoil. Heck standard AK mags will fit for the AK-203 that itself is giant reduction in logistical issues.

True, perhaps a year on, I can stop beating the taliban drum. Now to the new drum The LGBTQ+??-** Amriki army is moving on to 6.8mm. You can beat the 5.56 drum all you like, I would have much preferred the 6.8 but that's out the question for now.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Well they can be trained to use the AR-10 platform. If that is done I guarantee they will prefer it to the AK. They just need to be trained to use the bolt release properly. Which cannot be done effectively if you waste time training them on 2 different platforms.

Fyi, bolt release is a little button on the left side of the rifle on top of magazine well. You just need to press it and the bolt will cock itself. No need to pull the charging handle. Much, much quicker than AK mechanism.

SIG 716 is being used in the Himalayas. Army wants more of those. There was even talk of equipping the entire infantry with the SIG.

This is an outdated argument imo. The M4s performed well in Afghanistan after the US manufacturers ironed out some chinks.

It's not like they absolutely need folding rifles. And also, a 5.56 with the right grainage (say 77gr) not only will be satisfactory at 200-300m, it will enable a soldier to engage beyond said ranges if necessary. The smaller, lighter round also enables carrying of more ammo. High volume suppressing fire would be more effective for non infantry troops.
Because it enables then to keep the enemy away till some sort of QRT comes to their rescue (I'm assuming non infantry troops because that's who will be equipped with the 5.56/AK. For eg tank crew of a disabled tank. Or chopper crew of crashed chopper.)

For frontline fighters (I.e. infantry), exclusively equip them with SIGs. I don't see the disadvantage of this.

Also mechanised infantry are equipped the same as the rest of infantry. Considering they have been using INSAS so far, they won't have any issues with the SIG imo. They also need the ability to engage at long ranges.


Why add the AK-203s? The Northern, Eastern and Western commands will have better use for the SIG 716s.

Northern and Eastern commands are mostly high altitudes areas. So SIG 716 is already being used. Western command has a desert and plains. Which means lots of open ground. You can't go wrong with a long range gun. And wherever the necessity for AK-203 is currently being projected, AR-15 platform rifle can be used. Or at the very least use a local alternative. Like I said $1100 for a mass produced 7.62 AK is absolutely absurd.

And @AUSTERLITZ my point is, regardless of whether the 7.62 Soviet ballistics in 200-300m are nominally better than 5.56 at the sane range:

A) 5.56 is satisfactory
B) by opting for the 7.62 you are handicapping the soldiers in any engagement beyond 300m. And given our geography, 300-400m is where most of the fighting will happen.

Another thing to consider is that the Chinks will probably equip their infantry with level 4 ballistic protection in the near future. The only caliber capable of beating level 4 plates is 7.62 NATO at short range. The rest will be useless. Even Pakistan will follow suit in a decade or so. Then the AKs will become even more redundant. Better to equip entire infantry with SIG and the rest with 5.56. Better for logistics too.

Also for those who are worried about the dimensions of the SIG, it's not that much bigger or heavier than the AK.

I'm sorry to say this but your post lacks any understanding of ground realities.

AR designs don't work in cold weather. One of the major complaints of Indian Army troops using the Sig 716i is that it's not very reliable in sub arctic (read Siachen) conditions.

An AK is designed for cold weather operations thanks to the rock in magazine loading mechanism, large selector lever and loose tolerances and is something the Army is familiar with.

In mountain warfare you will need a round that packs a punch at close quarters after you are able to reach your enemy as seen in Kargil when storming bunkers. US SOCOM has been using the .300 blackout round which is essentially a 7.62x39 shrunk to fit a 5.56x45 magazine for increased lethality at upto 300 m.

The whole purpose of 5.56x45 was controlled automatic fire at close range with more rounds put down range at fairly decent accuracy. Distance makes it pretty redundant.

Against LVL III+/IV body armor plates, a 5.56x45 round would perform worse than a 7.62x39 due to sheet KE and steel core penetration. At the furthest range of 500 m the 5.56x45 round has no KE left to make a significant dent on any armour plates.

There is a reason why the US is switching to the 6.8x51 round for future requirements.

We cannot afford to waste money and are going for the 7.62x51 round which is pretty much the same thing with slightly worse performance at >800 m.

The Sig 716i is otherwise an excellent rifle with sub MOA accuracy, moderate recoil, modularity, low cost and easy accessibility to ammunition. However you cannot fold the stock of an AR style weapon due to the buffer stock. A Sig MCX style weapon with its short stroke piston will suffice but is more expensive.

Thus a folding stock AK is the Chekhov's gun option for our mechanised troops.

You aren't going to hit and eliminate anything reliably at > 400 m in battle without decent scopes and superior ammunition types (7.62x51, 6.8x51) so exchanging the 5.56x45 for a 7.62x39 with a loss of 100-150 m theoretical range and a significant increase in KE upto 300 m isn't a huge tradeoff.

The Russians use the 5.45x39 which is the 5.56x45 with a narrower projectile to defeat body armor with lower fragmentation. If they could figure out a way to get a decent 6.8x51 round they would have already done so.

TLDR: Mountain Warfare guys get Sig 716i with some AK 203s thrown in. Mechanised gets the AK 203s with some Sig 716i in DMR configuration.

 

[binayak95]

Both 5.56 NATO and INSAS round (INSAS rifle fires both) have been deemed insufficient based on experiences over the last 24 years. Army and the men actually fighting prefer (drop the nigga dead) stopping power at ranges 200-300m at which the overwhelming number of close encounters take place. Which is why RR and regular infantry on rotation in Kashmir still use AKs. Even Paras use AK regularly.

What do you mean how are they going to decide who gets what, different rifles will be allocated based on squad/section structure. There are already sections out there using a mix of AKs and Sigs right from the get go.

Logistical nightmare, please, entire commands are teeming with 7.62*39 ammo, that type of ammo is perhaps the most reliable produced by OFB. We import 5.56 NATO since apparently OFB ammo is shitty on that front even local Sig ammo showed higher recoil. Heck standard AK mags will fit for the AK-203 that itself is giant reduction in logistical issues.

True, perhaps a year on, I can stop beating the taliban drum. Now to the new drum The LGBTQ+??-** Amriki army is moving on to 6.8mm. You can beat the 5.56 drum all you like, I would have much preferred the 6.8 but that's out the question for now.

About the SIG rifles. Our genius guys took out 7.62x51 rounds from MMG belts and loaded them in SIG rifles and went HIGHER Recoil REEE.

Chutia OFB doesnt make match grade ammo NOR do they make rifle ammo in 7.62x51 anymore. Though with private ammo making about to kickoff, we might see change.

Less said about 5.56 INSAS the better

 

[Killbot]

AR designs don't work in cold weather. One of the major complaints of Indian Army troops using the Sig 716i is that it's not very reliable in sub arctic (read Siachen) conditions.

Do you have a source for this? Because the Sig was ordered exclusively for the Northern Command and I don't think IA would have ordered it if it couldn't perform in extreme conditions.

An AK is designed for cold weather operations thanks to the rock in magazine loading mechanism, large selector lever and loose tolerances and is something the Army is familiar with.

Yes the AK has loose tolerances. That woyld be a huge factor for a ragtag militia. But IA is a professional Army. Soldiers clean and maintain their weapons regularly. Which will ensure that the Sig will perform as it is intended to.

Again, if it couldn't perform in extreme conditions, IA wouldnt order it. The fact that they want 70k more says enough. Your point about the AR not performing is moot.

In mountain warfare you will need a round that packs a punch at close quarters after you are able to reach your enemy as seen in Kargil when storming bunkers. US SOCOM has been using the .300 blackout round which is essentially a 7.62x39 shrunk to fit a 5.56x45 magazine for increased lethality at upto 300 m

The .300 BLK is designed to be used with a suppressor because it is a subsonic round. It's not designed specifically for mountain warfare.

As for packing a punch, well, 7.62 NATO does that. Why cant it be used instead of AK at short range? It can do the same bunker busting stuff as AK. Ant it is almost the same size.

The whole purpose of 5.56x45 was controlled automatic fire at close range with more rounds put down range at fairly decent accuracy. Distance makes it pretty redundant

Can't argue with that. That is why I suggested that only *non infantry* be equipped with those. To ensure training commonality with Sig. Please go through my post again.

There is a reason why the US is switching to the 6.8x51 round for future requirements.

Yes, and that is more KE which results in more armor penetration. It is in line with changing US doctrine to combat near peer enemies.

We cannot afford to waste money and are going for the 7.62x51 round which is pretty much the same thing with slightly worse performance at >800 m.

We are already using 7.62×51. Why would we be wasting money? We are just simplyfing the logistics by going for 2 calibers instead of 3.

The Sig 716i is otherwise an excellent rifle with sub MOA accuracy, moderate recoil, modularity, low cost and easy accessibility to ammunition. However you cannot fold the stock of an AR style weapon due to the buffer stock. A Sig MCX style weapon with its short stroke piston will suffice but is more expensive.

Ok but is the folding stock really *that* important? Does it negate all the other advantages? No.

 

[Killbot]

Both 5.56 NATO and INSAS round (INSAS rifle fires both) have been deemed insufficient based on experiences over the last 24 years. Army and the men actually fighting prefer (drop the nigga dead) stopping power at ranges 200-300m at which the overwhelming number of close encounters take place. Which is why RR and regular infantry on rotation in Kashmir still use AKs. Even Paras use AK regularly

The only reason for Paras using AKs is the non availability of M4s and Tavors. This was the case with 11 and 12 when they were converted. INSAS uses shite OFB ammo. Which is why terrible performance. Said AKs used by infantry in Kashmir are bring replaced with Sigs.