- Oct 12, 2020
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.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
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.AR designs fail in cold weather which is where we will fighting against Pakistanis and Chinese along the Himalayas.
This is an outdated argument imo.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.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.
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.With 140,000 Sig 716i and 14,679 Negev LMG plus some AK 203 thrown in you can equip the entire Northern Command.
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.