Indians For Guns

Earlier Jawans were using 7.62 mm SLR. Its bullet was more powerful and accurate than the INSAS. INSAS is inferior to Ak-47 used by Pakistani terrorists and Army. India adopted INSAS because it is an Indian product, made by DRDO. But, doing so it underwent de-modernization. In terms of quality it lags behind SLR, Ak-47 or any NATO variant. INSAS gets overheated and jammed after two hours of firing. I perceive its biggest drawback being of lower caliber (5.56mm vs 7.62mm). Enemy soldiers now a days wear hard helmets and have some protective covering in their chest. Will our 5.56 mm small bullet be able to pierce them?
Another point to notice is the shoes of Indian soldiers. Shoes are unbranded, similar to those available in footpath.

T T wrote:Earlier Jawans were using 7.62 mm SLR. Its bullet was more powerful and accurate than the INSAS. INSAS is inferior to Ak-47 used by Pakistani terrorists and Army. India adopted INSAS because it is an Indian product, made by DRDO. But, doing so it underwent de-modernization. In terms of quality it lags behind SLR, Ak-47 or any NATO variant. INSAS gets overheated and jammed after two hours of firing. I perceive its biggest drawback being of lower caliber (5.56mm vs 7.62mm). Enemy soldiers now a days wear hard helmets and have some protective covering in their chest. Will our 5.56 mm small bullet be able to pierce them?
Another point to notice is the shoes of Indian soldiers. Shoes are unbranded, similar to those available in footpath.

i'll let jonahpach,cottage cheese and other senior guru's take this one.....

TT,
One thing to consider is that most modern armies have gone to smaller calibers like 5.56mm. The US army has been using it since Vietnam. It is the standard NATO assault rifle caliber now. Though it has its place, a larger caliber is not always better.
As for penetration, a 5.56 X 45 FMJ round will penetrate a quarter inch cold rolled steel plate at 100 yards. I have seen it go through half inch cast-iron plates at 50 yards like it wasn't even there.

A diligent search of the Internet or even this forum will list a myriad of reasons why a lighter caliber was picked. This is an ancient topic that has been argued and discussed since the US issued the M16 almost 50 years ago. You're behind the times, bud.

I really would like to see the rifle that would not get hot and jam after "two hours of firing"! Also, the smaller, higher velocity bullet will have better penetration against a hard target (helmet or body armor) than the larger slower bullet .

We have heard this discussion fire up many times. I get a bit confused as to whether the discussion centers on the INSAS rifle or the 5.56 NATO cartridge, both are often mentioned as the "fault" of the choice.

I can't claim to know much about an INSAS weapon, having never handled one, so I have little comment to make.

However, on the cartridge, I would observe again, as I have a number of other times, that cartridge and weapon choices are based on strategy, tactics, and mission. We have the history of firearms development going from a .58 caliber Minie Ball, to a .45 lead slug propelled by a charge of black powder, to a .30 to 8mm spitzer propelled by smokeless powder, and down to today.

It occurs to me that, at each stage of the development of military munitions and equipment, similar complaints would be made. In hunting circles, there's still a lot of discussion over the fast-moving small caliber light bullet vs. the slow moving larger one. This same argument also takes place in self-defense handgun circles, as well.

But since we are discussing the military category of these never-ending discussions, I wonder why it is, when the Soviets observed the US forces use of the M16 in 5.56 NATO on the loosing side in Vietnam, pitted against the Communist Bloc's AK47 in 7.62 x 39, the Soviets in the 70s developed their own 5.45 x 40 and adapted their AK design to fire this new cartridge, so undeniably similar to the 5.56 NATO.

Shall we make the case that both superpowers were deluded, led by incompetents, fools, and knaves? Or is this a case of that dissenting juror, who never met 11 more unreasonable and stubborn people in his life?

Bcoz,
1. Indian Army bosses are politicians and Generals don't have the spunk to say "no" ( you see post retirement vacancies)
2. Till date five modifications have been done yet there is oil spilling problems. ( though some improvement can be seen in newer version)
3. Indignation was the excuse, so now service pattern means from homeguard to SF all are same for MoH and MoD ( right to equality)
4. A f.... all weapon thrusted on the Armed Forces so that DRDO, Rifle Factory, Icchapur and other ordnance factories can survive.
5. So that small scale industries can survive and manufacture parts without worrying for quality control, from Dharavi to NeelKamal plastics.
6. So that we can claim we are following NATO norms.
For Boots
1. we believe in quantity not quality
2. lowest bidder has the best boots
3. on negotiation the l1 can be told to lower his prices further down

but guys believe you me. nation is in safe hands, see those recruitment rallies, it is better to die on post rather than die in lathi charge. JAI JAWAN JAI BHARAT

while i am not that much of a 'gun guru', the change of service rifle for the indian army has also to be seen in the context of the changing army doctrines.
the slr was and is a good rifle, but it lacks as far as maneuverability is concerned. in CI Ops for example you cant lug around a weapon like the slr. you are asking for trouble.
as far as the ak goes, most of the frontline battalions are issued with them, if not the majority of arms will be ak's.
secondly, in a battle field scenario, it is better to wound a soldier than to kill him outright. that way you pin down more of the enemy down.
thirdly, with increased pack loads, a compromise between weight and maneuverability is required. the insas is better than the slr in terms of weight and better than the ak in terms of accuracy. i guess, you cant have it all, and after the teething trouble most of everyone i have met seem happy with it.
P.S. the rifles jam sometimes after you put as little as 70 odd rounds through them. but thats a small minority. and decreasing.

as far as the boots are concerned, they do the job well and again, they are tried and tested. plus, in places where stringent quality control is required, eg hi alt areas, the boots are of the highest quality. i believe they were imported from switzerland. even in low lying areas, boots of companies such as hitec are being issued.

This is going OT, but I'll bite! Sorry to tread on anyone's toes, but the ammo boots/ DMS boots that are current issue in the Indian Army are quite simply put outdated sh*t3! Even the Brits threw out the DMS boots after the Falklands war, as they resulted in way too many injuries. There is a desperate need for modernising the basic kit issued to our jawans, if and when this will happen is anyone's guess. As to the footwear modernisation plans, IIRC the animal lovers just nixed the (much needed) replacement of standard issue sports shoes - as that would have led to the slaughter of x number of cows! :O

Back to the topic, the OP is obviously ignorant as far as the cartridge debate is concerned, however one point he makes (albeit unwittingly) shines through... a nation that lays claim to being a future superpower, is as yet incapable of even designing/ manufacturing a decent battle rifle! The pity of it is, that design talent exists, manufacturing capability exists, however government regulations ensure that neither is able to be tapped to its potential.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

mundaire wrote:a nation that lays claim to being a future superpower, is as yet incapable of even designing/ manufacturing a decent battle rifle!

Rifle is a tall order.. they can't even design and manufacture a decent pistol

spin_drift wrote:

mundaire wrote:a nation that lays claim to being a future superpower, is as yet incapable of even designing/ manufacturing a decent battle rifle!

The Gov't needs to free up people to free enterprise and exploration , that will leads to new ideas , free competition and develop some technology - may be 160 years and few 26/11's - Haji

spin_drift wrote:

mundaire wrote:a nation that lays claim to being a future superpower, is as yet incapable of even designing/ manufacturing a decent battle rifle!

Rifle is a tall order.. they can't even design and manufacture a decent pistol

lol this remind me of the machining was done by drunk monkeys with parkinson's quote
They can't even name their weapons, let alone designing and manufacturing, Just take a look at this page http://ofbindia.nic.in/index.php?wh=Weapons&lang=en I have yet to see a weapon that was actually designed by IOF, they just rip-off designs from others.

INSAS has fast moving lighter bullets whereas Ak-47 has slow moving heavier bullets. But, I think the lethality and destructive power of a bullet depends upon it muzzle energy. INSAS has muzzle velocity of 900 m/s and muzzle energy of 1684 Joule. Ak-47 has slower muzzle velocity of 715 m/s but higher muzzle energy of 2010 Joule.

@TT, muzzle energy is not everything there are other factors also which have to be taken into concentration.
1) Lighter bullets moving fast have less recoil and therefor aimimng in rapid fire is much easier.
2) Being light in weight they can be carried more in numbers as compared to heavy bullets.
3) Due to their high velocity they have flatter trajectory.
4) Lighter bullets moving fast are known to be great penetrators.Armor piercing bullets are often lighter bullets moving fast.