Posted April 21, 2016 7:00 pm by Comments

By Robert Farago

Indian rifle (courtesy indiandxefencereview.com)

“Should it be a rifle that ‘kills’ the enemy soldier or terrorist?” timesofindia.indiatimes.com asks. “Or, should it merely ‘wound’? With the decade-long hunt for a new-generation assault rifle still nowhere near finalization, the Army’s top generals will discuss this basic but critical weapon for infantry soldiers next week. The debate is about the ‘quantum of lethality’ required . . .

As per the Army’s experience, the 5.56mm rifle is considered better for conventional war since it generally injures an enemy soldier, which ties down at least two of his colleagues to carry him as well as hits general morale in the opposing force. The 7.62mm rifle is preferred for counter-insurgency since the aim is to kill a terrorist at the first instance before he can unleash mayhem. “There are different arguments for each side. The lethality, of course, also depends on where a bullet hits,” said an officer.

“The fact remains that all soldiers prefer the rugged 7.62mm AK-47s, which also have a higher rate of fire, than the indigenous 5.56mm INSAS (Indian small arms system) rifles for counterterrorism in J&K,” he added.

Not go all Hannah Montana, but the Indian Army tried to get the best of both …Read the Rest

Source:: Truth About Guns

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.