Small Arms & Tactical Equipment

Government Fast Tracks Purchase of Assault Rifles, Carbines For Rs 3,547 Crore After 11-Year Wait2 / 24
NDTV

Edited By Aloke Tikku42 minutes ago


NEW DELHI: A top government panel led by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Tuesday decided to purchase 1,66,000 assault rifles and battle carbines, the basic weapon used by soldiers, on a fast track basis for the armed forces.

The armed forces had first accepted the need for new carbines 11 years earlier but an attempt to make the purchase finally collapsed in 2016 because only one bidder cleared the trials. The wait for the assault rifles is a little shorter, 7 years.
AAuLRCu.img
© NDTV

On Tuesday, the Defence Acquisition Council - the defence ministry's highest decision making body on procurement - decided to cut the red tape and make sure that the armed forces get at least some of the weapons that they have sought without any more delay.

As part of this decision, the forces will now conduct trials, shortlist guns and sign a contract as soon as possible to buy 83,895 carbines and 72,400 assault rifles. Indian soldiers currently use AK-47s and INSAS or Indian Small Arms System rifles, which are made in India, and were inducted in the Army in 1988 and were meant to be replaced this year with deadlier assault rifles of higher calibre, especially for use along borders and in counter-insurgency operations.

Gun manufacturers from around the world including Defence Research and Development Organisation will be invited for trials.

But the Army had last year rejected assault rifles made by Ordnance Factory Board. In 2016, Excalibur, once considered a possible replacement for the in-service 5.56 mm INSAS rifle, was also rejected. Sources told NDTV that the weapons acquired cleared by the top panel on Tuesday were meant for all services.
Government Fast Tracks Purchase of Assault Rifles, Carbines For Rs 3,547 Crore After 11-Year Wait
 
lol. How can it be called fastracking when the final order is not even placed and the current govt has sat over it for 3.5 years. I think Arun Jaitley is not giving financial approval. When AJ was minister he made it mandatory that all orders above 1000 crores needs his approval even after Budget is allocated for defence.

Now he needs to maintain the Fiscal deficit. No new orders will be placed and all the allocated budget for defence will go back to finance ministry again.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aravind
Arvind said:
So gun manufacturers would again be invited for trials. :censored:
Click to expand...
That is a waste of time. IMO,
If News is correct DM is going for outright purchase to keep front lines equipped with Assault rifles, Carbines etc.
We are not asking for Star wars blasters,. it surprises ,me that we could send satellites to space, Mars, but cant design a Assault rifle.? The Desi katta manufacturers are better off at producing a clone of latest assault rifle, carbine in their workshops. Heck, looking at such Incompetency, i feel even i could make a product. It is not exactly Rocket Science.
 
Frankly this is on the IA. What kind of dumb army chooses to have weapons of three different calibers!! IF the IA goes for 7.62x51 I would be the first to call them retards
 
Is it imported or made in India? Why is the rifle cost 2lakh rupees per piece instead of 20-30 thousand a piece? Even USA military purchases M16 at 700 dollars a piece. What kind of specialist rifles is this to make it so expensive? Is there infrastructure cost involved to make it this expensive?
 
Vicky said:
lol. How can it be called fastracking when the final order is not even placed and the current govt has sat over it for 3.5 years. I think Arun Jaitley is not giving financial approval. When AJ was minister he made it mandatory that all orders above 1000 crores needs his approval even after Budget is allocated for defence.

Now he needs to maintain the Fiscal deficit. No new orders will be placed and all the allocated budget for defence will go back to finance ministry again.
Click to expand...

Nothing is going to happen till the fiscal. With the increase in crude prices, government borrowings and expected SOPs for rural sector, this is not going to happen till at least June. I think, the PunjLloyd factory for Galils and Tavors will be up in MP by then.
 
GuardianRED said:
Logistical nightmare is a term many have used !

Would like an expert opinion, if this is an Actual case or over-hyped issue
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go as far as calling it a nightmare...but I might call it an 'unnecessary complication'.

But then again, I'm not an expert.

Personally, I'd think two calibers are just fine. Three is stretching it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuardianRED
Parthu said:
I wouldn't go as far as calling it a nightmare...but I might call it an 'unnecessary complication'.

But then again, I'm not an expert.

Personally, I'd think two calibers are just fine. Three is stretching it.
Click to expand...

7.62 X 39 is good for RR battalions who handle domestic terrorists

7.62 X 51 is for LOC Fire Fights
 
STEPHEN COHEN said:
7.62 X 39 is good for RR battalions who handle domestic terrorists

7.62 X 51 is for LOC Fire Fights
Click to expand...

Question is, are we going for 7.62x39 just because we already have it and the logistical transition (at least for RR) could be cheaper? Or because the x39 has genuine advantages in the kind of operations RR conducts, which makes it better than a 5.56x45 (.223) or 7.62x51 (.308)?

Did RR try out 308 to entertain the idea of whether they can look at throwing away the x39?

My guess is that RR is not ready to let the x39 go. And chances are, Assam Rifles won't be, either. But it needs to be seen if a modern .308/.223 rifle can't be a good replacement for all AKs in the Army. Because let's face it - the only experience the Army has at large with a 5.56 AR is the INSAS and the only .308 experience is with the older SLRs...neither of which are full-auto rifles. I'm not surprised if some units would prefer the AK over them.

But a modern assault rifle (Excalibur for 5.56 and a foreign 308 like the Galil ACE or Tavor 7AR) is a completely different deal. Is it wise for RR/AR to stick with x39 rifles (albeit could be modernized AKs) over these beasts and all the logistical & economic benefits it could bring?

As I said, I wouldn't call it a nightmare if Army has 3 calibers of assault rifles as standard-issue. But it does raise the question if such a diversity in logistics is actually warranted or not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin
At LOC we need 7.62 X 51 because it has More killing power

Or else terrorists escape

Even BAT assault teams would carry 7.62 X 51 guns when they attack

In the Hinterland once we have surrounded a target it will die in some time

7.62 X 39 Rifles and ammunition are less expensive
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuardianRED
STEPHEN COHEN said:
At LOC we need 7.62 X 51 because it has More killing power

Or else terrorists escape

Even BAT assault teams would carry 7.62 X 51 guns when they attack

In the Hinterland once we have surrounded a target it will die in some time

7.62 X 39 Rifles and ammunition are less expensive
Click to expand...

I have no doubts about the lethality of the 308 - when Army said they wanted to switch from 223 to 308 I was fine with that.

I do not agree with the cost issue. The difference in cost of producing ammunition is likely minuscule - and easily outweighed by the additional costs of having multiple different production lines rather than standardize on equipment & logistics. In the end I won't be surprised if having a different caliber (which entails a different rifle, and different tools & infra that produces & supports that rifle) ends up costing GoI far more than standardizing 308 & 223 combo across frontline infantry as well as RR/AR.

Note that we are not just talking about standardizing the ammo - but the much costlier firearms as well. Three calibers means three rifles - which likely won't have any interchangeable parts.*** So the way I see it, there is no cost advantage to keeping the 7.62x39 around.

*** Something that can really save us some money (while still sticking with the 3-caliber setup) is if we adopt the various versions of the IWI ACE as Army standard-issue. This, however, would mean it's game over for INSAS/Excalibur.

ACE 23 (for the 5.56x45mm requirement):
ace-23-3949.jpg


ACE 32 (for the 7.62x39mm requirement):
ace-32-8493.jpg


ACE 52 (for the 7.62x51mm requirement):
ace-52-3464-copy.jpg


I see a huge deal of money saved & logistical issues avoided by going for guns from the same family - while still retaining the 3 caliber approach.

@Hellfire @Milspec @Abingdonboy @smestarz
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: suryakiran, Hellfire, STEPHEN COHEN and 1 other person
Parthu said:
I have no doubts about the lethality of the 308 - when Army said they wanted to switch from 223 to 308 I was fine with that.

I do not agree with the cost issue. The difference in cost of producing ammunition is likely minuscule - and easily outweighed by the additional costs of having multiple different production lines rather than standardize on equipment & logistics. In the end I won't be surprised if having a different caliber (which entails a different rifle, and different tools & infra that produces & supports that rifle) ends up costing GoI far more than standardizing 308 & 223 combo across frontline infantry as well as RR/AR.

Note that we are not just talking about standardizing the ammo - but the much costlier firearms as well. Three calibers means three rifles - which likely won't have any interchangeable parts.*** So the way I see it, there is no cost advantage to keeping the 7.62x39 around.

*** Something that can really save us some money (while still sticking with the 3-caliber setup) is if we adopt the various versions of the IWI ACE as Army standard-issue. This, however, would mean it's game over for INSAS/Excalibur.

ACE 23 (for the 5.56x45mm requirement):
ace-23-3949.jpg


ACE 32 (for the 7.62x39mm requirement):
ace-32-8493.jpg


ACE 52 (for the 7.62x51mm requirement):
ace-52-3464-copy.jpg


I see a huge deal of money saved & logistical issues avoided by going for guns from the same family - while still retaining the 3 caliber approach.

@Hellfire @Milspec @Abingdonboy @smestarz
Click to expand...


OR

just use 6.5 Grendel and chill

Will replace, 7.62x51N, 7.62x54R, 5.56 and 7.62x39 effectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuardianRED and Hellfire
STEPHEN COHEN said:
At LOC we need 7.62 X 51 because it has More killing power

Or else terrorists escape

Even BAT assault teams would carry 7.62 X 51 guns when they attack

In the Hinterland once we have surrounded a target it will die in some time

7.62 X 39 Rifles and ammunition are less expensive
Click to expand...
In that case, why not just dust off the SLR 1A1 rifles, they are mixed metric and imp pattern FAL, already cleared trials, and pretty much the best 7.62x51N platform even today. G3's are pretty much of the same vintage and still being effectively used on the other side of the border.

But remember all this gun-gaan of 7.62x51N is all fine, it is bitch in full auto and quite useless to hit anything in full auto. There was a reason why every Nato force moved away from 7.62x51N to 5.56 or other intermediate caliber for their mil issued select fire rifles.

7.62x51N or the 0.308 is a very very old round, which was prolific in it's time. So was the 7.92x57 and the 30.06 but we should not insist on using these now.
If there is any foresight in the South Block, they should be looking at a modern caliber (which they did a bit with the talks of 6.8SPC) but then again got it a$$ backwards with the 7.62x51 nato.

I personally have nothing against the caliber, I own two rifles chambered in 7.62Nato, but I do not think it is the right caliber for IA at this juncture.
 
Last edited:
The 7.62 X 51 is an excellent round, but, heavy recoil and not easy to control in automatic fire
7.62 X 39, more controllable in auto fire, good stopping power,
5.45 X 45, controllable in automatic fire, but not so good stopping power, but if compared with 7.62 X 39, more can be carried.

Thus, 7.62 has great stopping power, but if set a weight limit then soldiers can carry more quantity of 5.56 .
So ideally we require stopping power of 7.62 and controlability of 5.45 and also should be able to carry more nos as in 5.45

Grendel is good round. but we have a lot of stocks of the Ammo and we cannot just dump it and change.

Like you said that having one family will help issues with spares etc. but 3 different rounds will be logistical and production nightmare, how would you address that?

I personally feel to continue with say 7.62 X 39 or 7.62 X 51

The reason why USA went from 7.62 to 5.56 mm. because 7.62 X 51 was good for single shot but difficult for auto fire, and during the cold war era the Americans had perceived wave after wave of Soviet soldiers and thus if using 7.62 X 51 then the Auto fire will hit few and miss the rest and the soviets run over and in single shot mode, the Soviets still run over. thus 5.56 was acceptable as a good compromise where two well placed shot per soldiers were enough to put down. And in full auto, they would at least hit. 7.62 in full auto mode. the first two bullets will hit, and the rest will go over the head due to power of 7.62 bullet. but that was also due to "traditional rifle " design where the rifle butt was not not directly in line with barrel, but was at lower level than barrel and hence the recoil will tend to lift the gun up.

I think Indian army should do an analysis of what actually they want and test the round or develop a round that is as per our requirement. Its not a shame to accept 7.62 X 51 or 7.62 X 39, gone are the times of soldiers attacking in waves even semi automatic rounds can take them out at distance. 5.56 is light round and accurate but does not have stopping lower if the opponent has light protection. Also at a distance, 5.56 is not powerful as 7.62. It is a dilemma and its better to have our own analysis and testing and come up with our own solution. We do not have to follow the lead of USA, they have a well developed industry and can have 10 calibers if they want to, our Army is in learning stage and logistics can be a nightmare. so best is to analyse and test the right caliber which is good for our needs and then to design weapons around that caliber. And first step we have to understand, what is the range which we expect the firefights to be at on the border, surely not 1000 metres, if then then best to go for 7.92 X 57, and this is ok for snipers but realistic fights now take 400-700 metres mostly. so in that case 7.62 X 39 should be ideal or maybe develop 7.62 X 45 round,


Parthu said:
I have no doubts about the lethality of the 308 - when Army said they wanted to switch from 223 to 308 I was fine with that.

I do not agree with the cost issue. The difference in cost of producing ammunition is likely minuscule - and easily outweighed by the additional costs of having multiple different production lines rather than standardize on equipment & logistics. In the end I won't be surprised if having a different caliber (which entails a different rifle, and different tools & infra that produces & supports that rifle) ends up costing GoI far more than standardizing 308 & 223 combo across frontline infantry as well as RR/AR.

Note that we are not just talking about standardizing the ammo - but the much costlier firearms as well. Three calibers means three rifles - which likely won't have any interchangeable parts.*** So the way I see it, there is no cost advantage to keeping the 7.62x39 around.

*** Something that can really save us some money (while still sticking with the 3-caliber setup) is if we adopt the various versions of the IWI ACE as Army standard-issue. This, however, would mean it's game over for INSAS/Excalibur.

ACE 23 (for the 5.56x45mm requirement):
ace-23-3949.jpg


ACE 32 (for the 7.62x39mm requirement):
ace-32-8493.jpg


ACE 52 (for the 7.62x51mm requirement):
ace-52-3464-copy.jpg


I see a huge deal of money saved & logistical issues avoided by going for guns from the same family - while still retaining the 3 caliber approach.

@Hellfire @Milspec @Abingdonboy @smestarz
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: GuardianRED
smestarz said:
The 7.62 X 51 is an excellent round, but, heavy recoil and not easy to control in automatic fire
7.62 X 39, more controllable in auto fire, good stopping power,
5.45 X 45, controllable in automatic fire, but not so good stopping power, but if compared with 7.62 X 39, more can be carried.

Thus, 7.62 has great stopping power, but if set a weight limit then soldiers can carry more quantity of 5.56 .
So ideally we require stopping power of 7.62 and controlability of 5.45 and also should be able to carry more nos as in 5.45

Grendel is good round. but we have a lot of stocks of the Ammo and we cannot just dump it and change.

Like you said that having one family will help issues with spares etc. but 3 different rounds will be logistical and production nightmare, how would you address that?

I personally feel to continue with say 7.62 X 39 or 7.62 X 51

The reason why USA went from 7.62 to 5.56 mm. because 7.62 X 51 was good for single shot but difficult for auto fire, and during the cold war era the Americans had perceived wave after wave of Soviet soldiers and thus if using 7.62 X 51 then the Auto fire will hit few and miss the rest and the soviets run over and in single shot mode, the Soviets still run over. thus 5.56 was acceptable as a good compromise where two well placed shot per soldiers were enough to put down. And in full auto, they would at least hit. 7.62 in full auto mode. the first two bullets will hit, and the rest will go over the head due to power of 7.62 bullet. but that was also due to "traditional rifle " design where the rifle butt was not not directly in line with barrel, but was at lower level than barrel and hence the recoil will tend to lift the gun up.

I think Indian army should do an analysis of what actually they want and test the round or develop a round that is as per our requirement. Its not a shame to accept 7.62 X 51 or 7.62 X 39, gone are the times of soldiers attacking in waves even semi automatic rounds can take them out at distance. 5.56 is light round and accurate but does not have stopping lower if the opponent has light protection. Also at a distance, 5.56 is not powerful as 7.62. It is a dilemma and its better to have our own analysis and testing and come up with our own solution. We do not have to follow the lead of USA, they have a well developed industry and can have 10 calibers if they want to, our Army is in learning stage and logistics can be a nightmare. so best is to analyse and test the right caliber which is good for our needs and then to design weapons around that caliber. And first step we have to understand, what is the range which we expect the firefights to be at on the border, surely not 1000 metres, if then then best to go for 7.92 X 57, and this is ok for snipers but realistic fights now take 400-700 metres mostly. so in that case 7.62 X 39 should be ideal or maybe develop 7.62 X 45 round,
Click to expand...
Would it be safe to say that - there TOO MANY reports and miss-information going around with journos quoting too many different so call sources - THAT the actual requirement for which Force ie special ops, infantry or para-military, is been muddle, dazed and confused? and with this - also finger pointing and blame game !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom