Indian Army finds 5.56 ineffective and wants more AKs


PDA






nathan
January 13, 2011, 02:24 AM
NAGPUR: The indigenous 5.56x45mm Insas (Indian National Small Arms System) rifle has been the standard assault weapon for the Indian Army since the late 1990s. However, the jawans using it in counter-insurgency operations find it ineffective.
As part of the new Army doctrine, the gun is meant to incapacitate the enemy, rather than kill. Insas has a smaller calibre, which means it has less power. This is because ¡X and it's the official view ¡X injuring an enemy can lead to enemy soldiers getting engaged in tending the wounded, thus yielding a tactical battlefield advantage....

Read more: Saddled with Insas, Army wants new AK-47s - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Saddled-with-Insas-Army-wants-new-AK-47s/articleshow/4979790.cms#ixzz1As1YDUaJ


Related link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Saddled-with-Insas-Army-wants-new-AK-47s/articleshow/4979790.cms

If you enjoyed reading about "Indian Army finds 5.56 ineffective and wants more AKs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HorseSoldier
January 13, 2011, 02:38 AM
Never handled one, but INSAS has been pretty widely known as a mediocre, at best, weapon, reflecting a very poor case of borrowing from various previous designs. India got the "prestige" of fielding a local design that sort of demonstrated that maybe they should have shopped abroad.

As for the Indian MoD fielding a 5.56mm weapon because of their desire to only wound the enemy . . . either the reporter writing this piece is a retard, or the Indian powers that be are idiots. Nobody outside the subcontinent has ever fielded 5.56x45 for a desire to only wound the enemy, urban myths aside, so it begs the question of where the stupid enters the equation in India. Given the fact that reporters the world over are still reporters, my money is on the media, but I could be wrong.

nathan
January 13, 2011, 02:49 AM
So far i like my Ishapore 2A1 rifle in .308. Maybe im just old school. hahahaha...

Dr.Rob
January 13, 2011, 03:12 AM
This article contains a ton of urban myth as well as a need for a new sling & maybe a tougher magazine.

As for the zero wandering every time you clean it? That's a serious design flaw.

Quentin
January 13, 2011, 03:28 AM
Brilliantly said, HorseSoldier! Couldn't agree more.

Boberama
January 13, 2011, 03:35 AM
5.56 penetrates barriers like a wasp penetrates a double-glazed window.:neener:
What loads do you shoot through that Ishy?
Want one but scared of kabooms.

nathan
January 13, 2011, 03:39 AM
Im just using South African surplus 7.62 NATO . It shoots good though. No signs of overpressure on the spent casings that i had noticed.

Float Pilot
January 13, 2011, 04:57 AM
That particular news agency started having a beef with that rifle back in 1999.
Most of the problems they then reports have supposedly been fixed.
The troops from Napal said it works for them.

Basically it is an AK variant made with little thought to ergonomics.

A different sling attach point, different sling and better magazines would fix almost all of their complaints.
Sounds like a couple of under-trained and mouthy troops think that full auto AKs would be better for spraying bullets at close range.

OYE
January 13, 2011, 08:35 AM
"As part of the new Army doctrine, the gun is meant to incapacitate the enemy, rather than kill."

Killing the enemy in wartime is kind of, well, a 1940's type mentality.

atblis
January 13, 2011, 09:58 AM
or the Indian powers that be are idiots
Uh, they are. If you think out government is bad, a little time in India might put it into perspective how good we still have it.

sturmgewehr
January 13, 2011, 11:34 AM
Atblis,

You're not kidding. I've spent time in India and traveled around. It is a complete mess and their military, which is present everywhere, is at best poorly trained.

As for the media report about the Indian Army doctrine being to wound and not kill the enemy, that's complete non-sense. I trust the media outlet regurgitating this old wives tale can produce the official document from the Indian government that spells out this requirement/doctrine.

Not.

I've seen similar claims made by people about our own use of the 5.56mm round. Ironically, no one has ever produced a single shred of official evidence showing where any government requirement existed then (1960's) or today stating we wanted to wound and not kill the enemy.

It's utter non-sense.

So I would take this media report with a grain of salt as they're obviously biased and have an axe to grind, and they're willing to spread misinformation to grind that axe.

There might be elements within the Indian Army that want to transition to AK's. Heck, I'm sure there are elements within our own military that want to use AK's (and some Spec Ops do use them).

henschman
January 13, 2011, 12:35 PM
I think the commander of GSG-9, Germany's special forces, had it right. At the Infantry Symposium last year, sponsored by Rheinmetal, there was a discussion about the lethality of the 5.56. He commented that "The SS109 round was perfectly lethal up to 400 meters if the soldiers would hit what they were shooting at. I love the American soldier but they are not being taught marksmanship. The best rifle marksmanship training in America is from a private group called 'Johnny Appleseed' or some such thing."

He was referring to the RWVA's Appleseed Project.

What can be said about the woeful state of American military marksmanship training I'm sure can be said 10 times over for the Indian military.

In short, the main problem is not the cartridge... it is the ability of the shooter to put the bullet in the right place. The average soldier's effectiveness could be increased a lot more through proper and thorough training than it could be by any different equipment. That goes for our military as well as the Indians'.

Of course the soldier's job can be made easier with a more ballistically effective round, but it doesn't provide a lot of return if they can't hit what they are shooting at. You know, the slow 7.62x39 is not known as an especially lethal round, either. It penetrates barriers better and perhaps has a little more "knockdown" at closer ranges than the 5.56 just because of it's larger mass, but that's about it. The wound channel on a FMJ 7.62x39 is not too terribly impressive at any range, especially out to 300m and further.

If these guys really want a more lethal round, they should be pushing for hollow point or soft point ammo. Those are very effective against unarmored targets out of a .223. And if they are talking about fighting irregular forces, there are no Geneva Convention concerns.

BTW, at that Infantry Symposium, after the GSG-9 Commander's comments, a member of the American special forces community jumped up, corrected him on the name of Project Appleseed, and said he had taken the course and qualified because he came with some basic knowledge but the weekend was a real "ball buster." Come to one and find out for yourself! :D

Byron
January 13, 2011, 12:47 PM
The M-16 used in Nam used the M-193 round. It was very lethal.I will never know how this wounding myth got started. Byron

benEzra
January 13, 2011, 01:02 PM
Never handled one, but INSAS has been pretty widely known as a mediocre, at best, weapon, reflecting a very poor case of borrowing from various previous designs. India got the "prestige" of fielding a local design that sort of demonstrated that maybe they should have shopped abroad.
I wonder if the "blame the caliber" angle is an attempt to distract attention from the design's shortcomings.

Jaws
January 13, 2011, 02:52 PM
5.56mm is lethal for it's intended purpose. It has too do to many jobs this days. Jobs it was not intended for. Add to that the short barrels and no wonder you have reports saying is not "doing the job." Maybe it was not designed for that job in the first place.

OYE
January 13, 2011, 03:13 PM
I am compelled to ask how many people on this forum at THR would view the 223
as a 400 yd plus deer gun ( and a deer with or without a flak jacket to be specific) ?

Robert
January 13, 2011, 03:16 PM
Never met a deer with a flak jacket. Vietnam era deer maybe? :rolleyes:

Killing the enemy in wartime is kind of, well, a 1940's type mentality.
What?

Sam Cade
January 13, 2011, 03:32 PM
My Indian Army story:

Driving in a pouring rainstorm we see these 4 guys just standing by the side of the road, wearing rain gear and looking miserable. So, I pull over and roll down the window an ask if they need a ride or something.
One guy meanders over and says (in what sounds like a perfect British "posh" accent) that no, their ride will be along in a couple hours. Keep in mind that its raining like mad.
As I drive off I notice that they have stacked their rifles muzzle down in the mud. Actually jammed them up to the front sight.

nathan
January 13, 2011, 03:38 PM
Were the rifles they carry look like this ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/RFI_Rifle_7.62mm_2A1.JPG

alsaqr
January 13, 2011, 03:45 PM
I think the commander of GSG-9, Germany's special forces, had it right. At the Infantry Symposium last year, sponsored by Rheinmetal, there was a discussion about the lethality of the 5.56. He commented that "The SS109 round was perfectly lethal up to 400 meters if the soldiers would hit what they were shooting at. I love the American soldier but they are not being taught marksmanship. The best rifle marksmanship training in America is from a private group called 'Johnny Appleseed' or some such thing."


The commander of GSG-9 is spot on.
When Kuwait was invaded i had been the senior firing range advisor to the Saudi Arabian national guard for several years. We had a special marksmanship training program for the Saudis because the vast majority of them were poor marksmen.

Then the 82nd Airborne Division started using our ranges. They made the Saudis look like resolute marksmen.

T.A.Sharps
January 13, 2011, 03:58 PM
I'm sure the Indian military has their reasons.

But... I think I will fallow the lead of the U.S. Military and Special Forces given their long resume.

I don't recall the "Indian Influence" in WW1 nor WW2. At least they never said anything in any history class I took, Grandpa didn't say anything either. Also, I don't think Dad said anything about the Indians in Vietnam...

I know they were there in some capacity... I'm just guessing though.

Its kind of like having Steven Spielburg tell you one thing about movie making, and the video store clerk telling you he is full of **** and you should really do this.

sturmgewehr
January 13, 2011, 04:02 PM
Most modern combat takes place well short of 400 yards.

Regardless, many deer fall to .223 in the United States every year.

Sam Cade
January 13, 2011, 04:43 PM
Nathan: Nope, they weren't the local constabulary. They were Indian Army, had INSAS rifles.

Jaws
January 13, 2011, 05:16 PM
But... I think I will fallow the lead of the U.S. Military and Special Forces given their long resume.



This is what some of those special forces troops had to say:
from here:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/6fjrvj...e-issue-10.pdf

“We shot guys with a 5.56
millimeter center mass and had them walk in five hours later and say
‘you shot me.’ Then we would medically evacuate them. If you hit a
guy center mass – he needs to die. That is the whole point of shooting
at someone; not to do anything less than that.":)

sturmgewehr
January 13, 2011, 05:44 PM
Anecdotal stories of people being shot in the chest who survive aren't something we should base our military small arms usage on.

Example:

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/11/farmington_hills_hunter_surviv.html

Are 12ga slugs under powered? Are they adequate for deer? The guy in the above story survived being "shot in the chest" by a slug.

This guy was also shot in the chest with a slug in this story in Iowa and survived.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/12/iowa-man-shot-chest-hunting-partner

Given these two anecdotal stories, is there enough evidence to stop using shotguns with slugs for deer hunting because they're inadequate?

I think not.

HorseSoldier
January 13, 2011, 05:45 PM
I think the commander of GSG-9, Germany's special forces, had it right. At the Infantry Symposium last year, sponsored by Rheinmetal, there was a discussion about the lethality of the 5.56. He commented that "The SS109 round was perfectly lethal up to 400 meters if the soldiers would hit what they were shooting at. I love the American soldier but they are not being taught marksmanship. The best rifle marksmanship training in America is from a private group called 'Johnny Appleseed' or some such thing."

He was referring to the RWVA's Appleseed Project.

Unless someone can pull up a credible source for this I'm simply calling BS. I don't mean to hurt any Appleseed fans' feelings, but their program teaches zero about combat shooting, though they apparently try to dress the program up like it does.

This is what some of those special forces troops had to say:

Actually find some 18 series guys and talk to them. I spent almost five years assigned to an SFG and can't think of a single guy with a long tab who questioned 5.56mm getting the job done. Especially non-skeptical were the guys who had actually put rounds into bad guys -- probably their comfort with the round stemming from the fact that it very reliably kills people. And that was shooting folks with standard green tip, not any sort of fancy magic bullets that the rank and file in Big Army can only dream about.

Float Pilot
January 13, 2011, 07:24 PM
I think the commander of GSG-9, Germany's special forces, had it right.

Founded after the 1973 big goof-up at Munich "München is the real name for those who speak proper Deutsch" Grenzschutzgruppe 9 aka GSG9 is a police type organization which is now part of the Bundespolizei, formerly being called Bundesgrenzschutz.
They win all sorts of SWAT competitions and all sorts of other neat stuff. But they are not a military unit.

The Army KSK, Kommando Spezialkräfte and the Navy Bataillon Spezialisierter Kräfte is the real special forces type military unit of the German Bundeswehr and Bundesmarine.

Things have dramatically changed in German military politics ever since the flood from the East side came over..
Including the fact that all my West Bavarian relatives have to hide all their guns and can't go shooting.

FLAvalanche
January 13, 2011, 10:21 PM
Especially non-skeptical were the guys who had actually put rounds into bad guys

See...you have to actually put the bullets into the bad guys for starters...

CornCod
January 14, 2011, 12:17 AM
Indian Army troops pretty much fought everywhere the British Army fought: France, North Africa, Burma, Syria, Italian Somaliland, Italy ect. There was also a small military unit that fought on the side of the Japanese. The Indian Army has a proud fighting tradition. The Shikh units were particularly good.

CornCod
January 14, 2011, 01:20 AM
Compared with other Third-world armies the Indian Army is pretty good. They held their own in the 1962 war against China. They beat the Pakistanis in 1965 and 1971 in hard fought campaigns. Of course, they are not up to Western standards, but compared to the other armies of emerging powers, they have nothing to be ashamed of.

Afy
January 14, 2011, 10:31 AM
Indian Journalists wouldnt know the difference between an AK and INSAS if you put it where the sun dont shine. Bunch of morons at best.

The Indian Army's doctorine is not to shoot to wound, but kill. And yes the forces are actually very well trainied.

unterlegend
January 15, 2011, 01:52 PM
By the laws of land warfare attempting to wound the enemy instead of outright killing them is illegal (Geneva Convention).

And I would say most firefights I've been in were 200-500 meters and we used to concept of accuracy through volume because its inordinately difficult to aim while you are getting shot at.

And as far as the lethality of 5.56? we had locals walk up to our FOB who were shot in the FACE where it just bounced out of their neck. We saw Talibs who took quite a few rounds to their chest and the rounds just punched straight through, yes they would have died eventually (tension-pneumothorax, hemorrhaging, infection, etc...), but they could still continue the firefight because they were hopped up on all kinds of drugs. Although the 7.62x51mm from our M240Bs would stop them dead, no pun intended.

Magog
January 15, 2011, 06:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_m8omH47gI&feature=related


Lethal Impact of M-16 Ammunition


This looks like it will ruin your day.

Byron
January 15, 2011, 06:48 PM
My earlier reference on lethality was to the M-193 round we used in Nam.

unterlegend
January 15, 2011, 07:03 PM
I've seen a ND where it went clean through one of our training SAPI plates (ceramic plate inserts in our flak jackets). Out of the literally hundreds of people I've seen shot by 5.56, none of them looked like what happened in that animation. It was almost always clean through, although like most rounds it destabilizes and takes a wild path through the body but it exits with less internal damage most of the time (compared to heavier rounds).

Magog
January 15, 2011, 10:31 PM
The M468 is the answer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmiK_k0na6I

Hatterasguy
January 15, 2011, 11:18 PM
Cause AK47's are cheap, they can't afford to field a proper first world design and modern caliber.

Outside of Russia, the only army's that use AK's do so because they can't afford to purchase a modern design, or build their own. India's own rifle is a POS, and they can't afford to buy say a couple million SCAR 16's, M4's, G36's, etc. IE good modern weapons platforms.

I think the commander of GSG-9, Germany's special forces, had it right. At the Infantry Symposium last year, sponsored by Rheinmetal, there was a discussion about the lethality of the 5.56. He commented that "The SS109 round was perfectly lethal up to 400 meters if the soldiers would hit what they were shooting at. I love the American soldier but they are not being taught marksmanship. The best rifle marksmanship training in America is from a private group called 'Johnny Appleseed' or some such thing."

They talked about this at the Appleseed, currently the Marines are still taught how to shoot.

Hatterasguy
January 15, 2011, 11:23 PM
Unless someone can pull up a credible source for this I'm simply calling BS. I don't mean to hurt any Appleseed fans' feelings, but their program teaches zero about combat shooting, though they apparently try to dress the program up like it does.


No they don't, you should attend one. They pretty much teach the old AQT, I don't know when they stopped shooting it, but the old timers who qualified with a Garand would be very familiar with it. Or a Marine.

Magog
January 15, 2011, 11:36 PM
Also the Grendel 6.5m by Alexander arms is good.


You can get a 6.5m upper receiver for your m4 and shoot though cars.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSU4miMcSJQ&feature=related

Grunt Medic TXARNG
January 15, 2011, 11:48 PM
... the commander of GSG-9 ... commented that "The SS109 round was perfectly lethal up to 400 meters if the soldiers would hit what they were shooting at. I love the American soldier but they are not being taught marksmanship. The best rifle marksmanship training in America is from a private group called 'Johnny Appleseed' or some such thing." He was referring to the RWVA's Appleseed Project.

Originally Posted by Horse Soldier
Unless someone can pull up a credible source for this I'm simply calling BS. I don't mean to hurt any Appleseed fans' feelings, but their program teaches zero about combat shooting, though they apparently try to dress the program up like it does.I'm sorry, but no. Appleseed teaches basic rifle marksmanship only - use of the sling for support, field positions, and the Rifleman's cadence - but no, not tacticool fire and maneuver. That said, the AS weekend and rifleman boot camp I went to compared favorably with my Basic Rifle Marksmanship training week in Marine Boot Camp.

The salient point remains unchanged - that our forces would greatly benefit from more in-depth marksmanship training and practice. The Brits used to require weekly marksmanship practice with rimfire rifles - and we used to pay expert marksmen a bonus for maintaining their skills. We can learn valuable lessons by studying what worked for those who came before us.

unterlegend
January 15, 2011, 11:59 PM
There is a huge difference between target shooting and combat, and at USMC boot camp and most marksmanship training I've been to focuses on target shooting. It's the ranges that we run for assaults, raids, or CMP shoots that builds combat shooting abilities, and those are run by the individual units. It does depend on the unit but most victory (infantry) units in the Corps get quite a bit of practice.

mljdeckard
January 16, 2011, 12:15 AM
Combat shooting is useless if the shooter doesn't already have basic rifle skills. I know we all WISH that the army would put everyone on the range for six weeks, but they haven't the time, money, nor the inclination to do so.

Usagi
January 16, 2011, 01:12 AM
Unless someone can pull up a credible source for this I'm simply calling BS. I don't mean to hurt any Appleseed fans' feelings, but their program teaches zero about combat shooting, though they apparently try to dress the program up like it does.
Alas, this is correct. Appleseed teaches basic marksmanship, from the point of view of NRA High Power competitions - which are the inspiration for Appleseed.
Appleseed founder "Fred" is/was an ardent HP shooter, and that's what he based the program on.

That said, the marksmanship taught at Appleseed is good stuff! ;)

That said, many internet yahoos seem to think there is a similarity in "field position" shooting and combat. Though such shots might be taken occasionally, it is not the norm for combat, from what I have heard.

This coming from someone who has attended 2 AS events, and many times shot the AS "Rifleman" score.

For the Appleseed folks who might say "combat shooting is useless if the shooter doesn't already have basic rifle skills."
I say the reverse is equally true: basic marksmanship in combat is useless if you don't back it up with proper tactics.
Can't have one without the other. Like the rifleman's "prayer" -
Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless.
I would take this a step further and say:
"Without tactics, marksmanship is useless. Without marksmanship, tactics are useless."

mljdeckard
January 16, 2011, 02:32 AM
I still maintain that soldiers being trained are much better off if they have already had good training and shooting experience growing up.

Tomcat47
January 16, 2011, 02:39 AM
I wonder if they are shooting it up in the air and screaming and hollering at the enemy?.............:confused:........(with no sterotyping implied) :uhoh:

Really! i did not mean it that way.............

Dumptruck
January 16, 2011, 08:26 AM
Indians are not like the gents we fight overseas.

Hawksnest
January 16, 2011, 10:28 AM
Never handled one, but INSAS has been pretty widely known as a mediocre, at best, weapon, reflecting a very poor case of borrowing from various previous designs. India got the "prestige" of fielding a local design that sort of demonstrated that maybe they should have shopped abroad.

As for the Indian MoD fielding a 5.56mm weapon because of their desire to only wound the enemy . . . either the reporter writing this piece is a retard, or the Indian powers that be are idiots. Nobody outside the subcontinent has ever fielded 5.56x45 for a desire to only wound the enemy, urban myths aside, so it begs the question of where the stupid enters the equation in India. Given the fact that reporters the world over are still reporters, my money is on the media, but I could be wrong.
Well, the Insas also fires the 5.56x30, which I would think is even less lethal than the x45. But all in all, well said.

Greenmachin3
January 16, 2011, 12:32 PM
The 5.56x30 "MINSAS" caliber is more or less a PDW caliber with similar applications to the FN 5.7x28. I don't think they deploy it often to their rank and file troops. Otherwise, the INSAS uses 5.56x45 NATO.

I really like the following argument.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/243_service_rifle.htm

A friend of mine has a DSA FAL in .243, I'm not sure if they still make them, but it's extremely fun, accurate, and soft, for a FAL.

Gottahaveone
January 16, 2011, 01:51 PM
"...Oil spillage while firing is also major trouble,'' said a source quoting soldiers."
What?!!? That is a direct quote form the article link in the OP. This alone is enough to make me have serious questions about the validity of ANYTHING else stated there.

Or maybe in the context of Appleseed, they're talking to Cooks, not Riflemen :)

Al Thompson
January 16, 2011, 09:03 PM
Chuck Hawks gets a lot of facts mixed up. That article referenced is an excellent example of someone with a little knowledge and a web site. Give you a hint - he has no idea what 5.56 NATO is and why .243 is an over-bore cartridge. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Indian Army finds 5.56 ineffective and wants more AKs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!