Indians For Guns

The earliest use of air rifles was for hunting and the military. In that era air guns were cheaper and less prone to being rendered ineffective by bad weather. The fact that air guns can be used in war is well known, but chemical tech has made regular firearms far more effective than air guns, which have been relegated to a small sporting niche using pellets mainly in the 4.5 mm to 5.5 mm caliber range.

But air rifles have certain advantages. They are not as loud as regular firearms and could possibly be useful in situations like sniping. Ammunition carriage would be made much lighter because the propellant is air, but this "advantage" is subject to the contraint of what the source of compressed air might be.

Ammunition for real war has seen some evolution. The .303/7.62 became standard, but then there was a push towards "lighter" 5.56 mm rounds so soldiers could carry more, or carry a lighter load. The philosophy was that if you kil a man (say one round of 7.62) his comrads will keep attacking. but if you wound a man (with a 5.56 mm round) it will take away two of his comrades to carry him back.

However good this idea was, it does not cater to the attacker (such as a crazed suicidal Taliban or Lashkar e Toiba attacker) who will keep running forward firing his AK despite several 5.56 mm rounds that have gone through him, and his comrades don't care anyway. So there is a move in militaries to introduce a caliber somewhere in between 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm. (6.5 mm?)

I just wonder if there could be a niche role for a powerful air rifle.

What caliber would you make it? What would be the weight of the round.

Would it be a springer (unlikely in my opinion), or one that uses comperssed air?

What would be the method of compression? Manual? Electric (solar/rechargeable)?

Any innovative ideas? Let us design a killer air rifle for the Indian military. Modern firearms generate muzzle velocities of 600 to 800 meters per sec. Can air guns match such velocities? Are such velocities always required? If a rifle is designed for accurate and quiet shooting at say 500 meters, would there be some niche role for it?

Any thoughts anyone?

The philosophy was that if you kil a man (say one round of 7.62) his comrads will keep attacking. but if you wound a man (with a 5.56 mm round) it will take away two of his comrades to carry him back.

Who came up with this non-sense philosophy ?
What if a 7.62 x 39 was used to wound the enemy and a 5.56 x 45 used to kill the enemy ?

However good this idea was, it does not cater to the attacker (such as a crazed suicidal Taliban or Lashkar e Toiba attacker) who will keep running forward firing his AK despite several 5.56 mm rounds that have gone through him, and his comrades don't care anyway. So there is a move in militaries to introduce a caliber somewhere in between 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm. (6.5 mm?)

It's always important where a person was shot and not with what caliber he was shot . You can shoot a person with a .500 S&W in the finger , which will blow off his finger , but not kill the man . You shoot a person in the head with a .22lr , he will die.

Let us design a killer air rifle for the Indian military

.

Yea .. and then get arrested .

FN-Five-Seven wrote: Who came up with this non-sense philosophy ?

How many references do you want?
click here

FN-Five-Seven wrote: Yea .. and then get arrested .

LOL I like your sense of humor. You can design anything. If you possess one that is illegal then you get arrested. No penalty for thinking. At least where I live...

Assuming that you have posted the correct google link , all I am getting are a bunch of Online debate between 7.62 x 39 bullet vs 5.56 x45 bullet .

I was asking for some concrete proof , which supports the theory that when an person is killed with a 7.62 ammo , his comrades will continue the assault , where as if the person is wounded with a 5.56 ammo , then his " Brother-in-arms " will call off the assault and pack their gear up and head for home .
Also if a person is killed by a 5.56 ammo , maybe his comrades will be confused , because they were only trained to follow the " Killed by 7.62 " protocol and not the " Killed by 5.56 " protocol .


It's nice to know that my sense of humor is being appreciated , but the fact is I was not joking .

Unless you own and operate an weapon designing firm which has won an contract from the Govt of India , for designing air rifles for the Indian Armed Forces , you will have a very tough time convincing the Authorities , that you just stopped at the Designing process and did not initiate the manufacturing process of a Prohibited Bore weapon . Also that you are not working for the Maoists .

Since thinking is penalty free in your region , above paragraph is some food for your thought .


Here is a link to a .357 caliber . multi shot , compressed air , utra quiet rifle . Guess the guys at Benjamin beat you with their design and not to mention manufacturing . Darn them !

Click Here

F-N-Five-Seven

FN-Five-Seven wrote: I was asking for some concrete proof , which supports the theory that when an person is killed with a 7.62 ammo , his comrades will continue the assault , where as if the person is wounded with a 5.56 ammo , then his " Brother-in-arms " will call off the assault and pack their gear up and head for home .
Also if a person is killed by a 5.56 ammo , maybe his comrades will be confused , because they were only trained to follow the " Killed by 7.62 " protocol and not the " Killed by 5.56 " protocol .

Here is some info from the links I posted earlier
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013 ... mm-7-62mm/

SAS to use bigger bullets to kill enemy outright after claiming 'shoot-to-wound' policy put their lives at risk

The SAS are being issued with new ammunition designed to kill the enemy outright after they condemned a ‘shoot-to-wound’ policy that put their lives at risk.

The elite troops will now use bigger, heavier rounds to overcome Islamic insurgents who are determined to fight to the death.

The bullets upgrade – and a new range of rifles designed to fire them – were recommended in a top-secret report on SAS operations in Afghanistan. It called for a return to a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy and for heavier rounds to be issued to troops. The report’s authors described bloody clashes with Taliban jihadists who managed to ignore their bullet wounds and carry on shooting.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2f1Esrjc8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Given all the evidence from Vietnam that the 5.56mm round of the M16 was not adequate to stop even a small framed individual pumped up on adrenaline or dope; it seems that we are revisiting these issues again now in Iraq. Many operators in theater in Afghanistan and Iraq have made similar comments about the inability of the 5.56mm to stop and drop the current foe.

FN-Five-Seven wrote:It's nice to know that my sense of humor is being appreciated , but the fact is I was not joking .

Unless you own and operate an weapon designing firm which has won an contract from the Govt of India , for designing air rifles for the Indian Armed Forces , you will have a very tough time convincing the Authorities , that you just stopped at the Designing process and did not initiate the manufacturing process of a Prohibited Bore weapon . Also that you are not working for the Maoists .

Since thinking is penalty free in your region , above paragraph is some food for your thought .

Well you go ahead and play it safe and stop thinking. A design can be on paper or on computer. Not a working prototype. Where I live that is allowed. There is no need to fear thinking. There are people who design missiles on paper and no one is getting worked up.

FN-Five-Seven wrote:
Here is a link to a .357 caliber . multi shot , compressed air , utra quiet rifle . Guess the guys at Benjamin beat you with their design and not to mention manufacturing . Darn them !

Click Here

F-N-Five-Seven

Thank you for this link. In fact if humans stop at one design and say that no more is required and display an irrational fear of the idea of new thinking, we would have had no innovation at all.

I appreciate your inputs, but I think I will keep searching for more ideas. The question I asked was whether the military would find a design of an air powered weapon useful, and what design might be useful. But you have said that it is illegal to think about it and that one design that you have linked represents the end of any need for further innovation or thought. That does not constitute an answer to the questions I asked.

Ok I asked Google chacha about large bore air rifles and discovered that the largest bores used for hunting, although impressive in performance from the air rifle point of view , are all advertised as having effective ranges of 50 to 70 meters. This is too small for a military rifle to be useful.

I still wonder if it is possible to design a military grade air rifle to shoot a quiet and lethal sniper bullet/pellet at useful ranges?

I think it is technically possible, but I suspect that the actual design may not be useful for carrying around and hiding in rough terrain. Acceleration and accuracy can be gained by making a barrel longer, but that would make a rifle heavier and more unweildy.

..will keep looking for information.

Heard of the Air Force condor? The Sumatra? You are trying to re-invent the wheel old chap.

dev wrote: Heard of the Air Force condor? The Sumatra?
You are trying to re-invent the wheel old chap.

Briha

@ bennedose I think you have raised a good question ,this may not be a viable solution but curiosity is the mother of invention ! you never know what can be born of the same ...they used to say "No one will need more than 637 kB of memory for a personal computer"

Yes were were also briefed on the same lines in NCC when I had asked the rationale for switching from 7.62 to 5.56.
I was told something on the lines of "Dushman ko causalty karna hai, marna nahi hai"

US Army found in Mogadishu that standard issue 5.56x45 does not have adequate stopping power. Two or more rounds needed to be sent to the target to incapacitate.

M.

FN-Five-Seven wrote:

The philosophy was that if you kil a man (say one round of 7.62) his comrads will keep attacking. but if you wound a man (with a 5.56 mm round) it will take away two of his comrades to carry him back.

Who came up with this non-sense philosophy ?
What if a 7.62 x 39 was used to wound the enemy and a 5.56 x 45 used to kill the enemy ?

If you study powerplants for air rifles and firearms in detail, you will realise why they do not use air rifles.
Reliability and Practicality decisions far outweigh Technically possible concepts in the military.

M.

bennedose wrote:I still wonder if it is possible to design a military grade air rifle to shoot a quiet and lethal sniper bullet/pellet at useful ranges?

I think it is technically possible, but I suspect that the actual design may not be useful for carrying around and hiding in rough terrain. Acceleration and accuracy can be gained by making a barrel longer, but that would make a rifle heavier and more unweildy.

..will keep looking for information.

dev wrote:Heard of the Air Force condor? The Sumatra? You are trying to re-invent the wheel old chap.

Actually both these don't fit the bill.

The Condor is advertised as having a muzzle velocity of 1450 fps. Very nice but only 0.177 or 0.22. And the Sumatra again comes in those calibers but is advertised providing a muzzle energy of 78 fpe. great for sporting air rifles but woefully inadequate for a military grade weapon.

So I'm still searching to see if anyone has come anywhere near making something useful for the military and whether, as fantumfan says it may be technically possible but impractical.

My questions are "What specs or design features would make a militarily useful air rifle?" and "What would make it impractical?"

jatindra Singh Deo wrote:@ bennedose I think you have raised a good question ,this may not be a viable solution but curiosity is the mother of invention ! you never know what can be born of the same ...they used to say "No one will need more than 637 kB of memory for a personal computer"

Thanks jatindra. Just my point

Here is some info about the Quackenbush bandit - a high power 0.5 cal hunting air rifle
http://www.quackenbushairguns.com/bandit_1.html

The way this gun gulps air, you'll want to use a scuba tank to refill it most of the time. I found our test Bandit used 400-500 psi of air per shot for the first two shots. That begins to taper off starting with shot three. I felt that four good, powerful shots were available with each 3,000 psi fill. It's possible to get more than 10 shots from a fill, but the velocity of the final one will be down in the 400s. All big bores use a lot of air, which may surprise those who are used to getting 30-50 good shots from a smallbore PCP.

The vintage big bore guns from centuries past got more shots from an air charge than the new breed of screamers because they didn't do nearly the work with each shot. Big bore airguns of old were content to push out 60 to 150 foot-pounds of energy, with most of them hovering somewhere below 125 ft.-lbs. They derived their energy more from projectile weight than from velocity.

Today's big guns do both - they push big heavy bullets and they push them fast. Much faster than vintage airguns. The .50-caliber Bandit sends a 180+-grain ball downrange at a trifle more than 800 f.p.s., depending on the gun and the temperature. A vintage big bore of the same caliber might have gotten as high as 550 f.p.s. on a good day, but 500 would have been more like it. The difference between old and new might not seem like much, but it happens at a point on the performance curve where enormous energy is required to do just a little more work. The experimental long-barreled Bandit we tested went a little faster than the 26-inch standard model, but not enough to warrant an additional six inches of barrel.

But again this 0.5 caliber rifle is effective only to 50 yards or so. Looks like a mean machine - but not mean enough for serious military use.

The Korean "Dragonslayer" again is effective 50-70 yards
http://www.airgundepot.com/big-bore-article.html

The Dragonslayer is not as powerful as some of the custom guns, however I’ve taken feral hogs inside of 50 yards, and smaller antelope in Africa at 70 yards. I have also used it to take jackrabbits at long distances (out to 100 yards), and coyote, raccoons and other hard to kill quarry at 60 – 70 yards.

I was told something on the lines of "Dushman ko causalty karna hai, marna nahi hai"

No wonder , our enemies from across the border and else where keep coming back over and over again . They get injured , heal and come back and renew the assault .

I appreciate your inputs, but I think I will keep searching for more ideas.

Sure , don't let me or anyone else stop you . My good wishes are with you .

The question I asked was whether the military would find a design of an air powered weapon useful, and what design might be useful.

No , not in real combat at least .

But you have said that it is illegal to think about it and that one design that you have linked represents the end of any need for further innovation or thought.

I didn't say it's illegal to think ; I said people will land in trouble if they start designing Military grade weaponry , whether powered by air or gunpowder . "Illegal thinking" part is all your creation .

It's not a link to a design , dear , it's a link to a successful product .

And since you are mentioning over and over " Where I live ..." ; curiosity is getting the better of me , so I ask , where
do you reside ?

F-N-Five-Seven