Pakistan Army Small Arms

There are rumours of new trials happening, I don't expect them to go anywhere, I fully Expect they will keep the G3 in service till the 2050s/60
 
RafaleSlayer said:
a caliber performance is not a simple one on one comparison. Each caliber has their pros and cons and depends on the role in which they are employed. No caliber is a silver bullet that will fit all situations. Having just one platform and one caliber limits the optimal utilization, that is why most militaries use multiple platforms and multiple calibers and use the one most suited for the situation. 545 and 556 are suited for mid range (300 metes max) engagements, they lack the stopping power due to lighter projectile however allow more rounds to be carried and allow quick follow up shots in an urban environment. They are not so effective in ranges beyond 300 meters and non-urban setting like say in mountainous areas of Baluchistan or KPK when dealing with insurgents. In such scenarios heavier projectiles like 762x51/54 perform better as they carry more energy at longer distances and have more stopping power.

Its a never ending debate because these calibers are not one or the other, its the one that suits the scenario.

It came about more than a decade ago and i have not seen an traction towards it by any military branch.
Click to expand...
6.5C has been out 18 years now. I know both the guys who developed the cartridge.

You might have missed where I posted USSOCOM has adopted the 6.5C for use. Of course, as a Special Operations unit, they have a lot more flexibility on what they can use and deploy over a regular line unit.

They adopted the 6.5C for use specifically in Afghanistan because the round has superior ballistics and retains more energy over long distances than the 7.62x51. Unless you are using something like the M118 round in the 7.62x51, standard 7.62 rounds go trans-sonic at around the 800 yard mark and by 1000 yards subsonic. The 6.5C with a 140gr BTHP match grade bullet does not have that problem.
 
Last edited:
RafaleSlayer said:
545 and 556 are suited for mid range (300 metes max) engagements, they lack the stopping power due to lighter projectile however allow more rounds to be carried and allow quick follow up shots in an urban environment. They are not so effective in ranges beyond 300 meters and non-urban setting like say in mountainous areas of Baluchistan or KPK when dealing with insurgents.
Click to expand...
The Germans and the Russians both discovered at roughly the same time as a result of combat on the Eastern Front that the majority of infantry engagements took place at ranges of 300M and less.

It was that combat on the Eastern Front that directly led to the German development of the 7.92x33 Kurz and the Russians the 7.62x39. Deployment of the StGw44 allowed the Germans to go back to killing Russians with their usual Teutonic efficiency. But by that time, it was too late.

It took the US until about Korea to finally accept that the Germans and Russians were right. Then they got on the #METOO train to develop a round that matched the .30 M2 Ball without the weight and bulk of the round. That led to the development of the 7.62x51 which I still disagree with to an extent because the Brits were in favor of a .280 round (7mm). Big Army just couldn't let go of the idea of having a .30 caliber cartridge.

And now? What do we have? The introduction of the 6.8 whatever the eff they call it. Basically staying as close as the Army can to having a .30 caliber round without it really being a .30 caliber round. I see nothing but a host of problems with this cartridge but what do I know? Someone at PEO-Soldier has already gotten a nice promotion out of this in spite of what is already coming back from units already carrying it.
 
Last edited:
Tremain said:
Men who look like toads often end up with beautiful wives. "Ugly" is a subjective word.

Does it kill people? Yes sir, it does. What more do I want?

The weapon will evolve, no doubt. It's not something that will spray oil into your face every time it is fired (as the INSAS does). Cheek rests can be removed, butt stocks can be changed.
Click to expand...
If it weren't for my desire of OpSec, I'd post a picture or two of a couple of my weapons. Nothing special. You can do the same at home as well.

How I have them configured is based on an intended purpose and if necessary, a couple could be used for the job of the other just fine.

The others would not be as efficient.
 
Last edited:
Toxic said:
There are rumours of new trials happening, I don't expect them to go anywhere, I fully Expect they will keep the G3 in service till the 2050s/60
Click to expand...
Its not a rumour… its happening, confirmed!!!

CW39,BW20, G3, , gsr, mav22, klass 786 and an undisclosed firearm, locally manufactured
 
Echoobserver said:
Its not a rumour… its happening, confirmed!!!

CW39,BW20, G3, , gsr, mav22, klass 786 and an undisclosed firearm, locally manufactured
Click to expand...
Why so much variety when we need basicly 2 rifle types? Retooling nightmare for POF if they go with that many different guns.
 
gangsta_rap said:
Why so much variety when we need basicly 2 rifle types? Retooling nightmare for POF if they go with that many different guns.
Click to expand...
These are the rifles being trialed right now to replace military’s rifle.

If this goes through, would be interesting to see who gets the contract
 
No need to go through the trials again, BW20 and CW39 look ugly and don't offer anything extra. CZ BREN2 is a decent platform and already trialed, we can induct that in smaller batches for special units and maybe get license production in Pakistan for G3/AK47 replacement
 
gangsta_rap said:
Why so much variety when we need basicly 2 rifle types? Retooling nightmare for POF if they go with that many different guns.
Click to expand...
I might be biased but then that could be due to what I carried. Settle on two calibers. 5.56mm for standard issue. 7.62x51 where needed. Retire 7.62x39 or allocate it to Special Operations and 2nd tier or rear echelon units whose primary mission does not call for needing the two main rifles.

SpecOps having 7.62x39 comes in handy when operating in areas where there is plenty of 7.62x39 readily available. Or, 5.45x39.

The new 5.56 and 7.62 platforms should share some commonality. For example, my ARs can share some parts with my AR-308. Mostly lower parts. Trigger groups, buffer tubes, stocks, disconnects, and safety switches.

The lowers should be capable of accepting different uppers depending on mission requirements. For example, I certainly don't want a suppressed 20" barrel when conducting house-house / room-room clearing operations when a suppressed 10.3" to 11.5" barrel is ideal.

The 7.62 variant should be equipped with 16", 18" and 20" configurations. Personally, I would avoid 16". Too much bark even when suppressed. Have an alternate caliber such as 6.5C available. If given the choice for overwatch from 800-1000 yards, I'm going with 6.5C.

Oh!!! Allow for a 10" .300BO option, suppressed, for the 5.56 variant. .300BO is ideal of CQC or running suppressed with 200-220g bullets.

Gas systems? Direct impingement has been around a LONG time however USSOCOM uses the HK416 for a reason. The Marine's M27 rifle is a piston.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top