Pakistan Army Small Arms

[Path-Finder]

Simple, Robust, Reliable, Affordable, and They would be open to license manufacturing on easy terms.

the myth that only AK is reliable, is no longer the case. so much work has been done to improve other rifles that their old reliability issues are not common. AK are simple but accuracy is what its all about now. that's why scopes on rifles exist. instead of dumping ammo shot accurately and move on. AK is no longer the king of reliability other rifles offer good reliability too.

War in Ukraine has is the ultimate testing ground of rifles.

 

[Vapnope]

Bring in the license production of SAR9 and Canik pistols Pakistan. Pakistanis deserve quality guns under 150k pkr tbh.

One more thing is the absence of local 0.22 lr rifles for plinking/sports/hunting. I don't really understand why state is sleeping on it.

 

[farooqbhai]

Bring in the license production of SAR9 and Canik pistols Pakistan. Pakistanis deserve quality guns under 150k pkr tbh.

One more thing is the absence of local 0.22 lr rifles for plinking/sports/hunting. I don't really understand why state is sleeping on it.

Why is the private arms industry sleeping on it? Why should it be the states responsibility to do everything?

 

[Vapnope]

Why is the private arms industry sleeping on it? Why should it be the states responsibility to do everything?

I can think of several issues,
1 - Investment issues
2 - Blanket ban on licenses for private ownership which probably will be the reason for poor ROI & payback period
3 - Probably absence of license for a private manufacturer to license produce weapons for an external player.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

.22 rimfire is not just an ideal plinking round and for hunting small game, it is an excellent training round. I myself started with a .22 and I've taught many people, including my wife, kids, and grandkids to shoot all using a .22.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

FN Herstal is how do I put this, bit expensive to be a widely adopted rifle.

The majority of current production M-16 / M-4 rifles come from FN Herstal's plant based in Columbia, South Carolina.

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

If its 7.62x51 then that is a battle rifle cartridge. Its heavy and so is the rifle for it so now a squad will have one or two of these rifle as needed and most others have lighter 5.56 because you can carry more ammo, lighter recoil and accurate. 5.56 is accurate there is no debate.
Imagine walking for miles over uneven terrain carrying a battle rifle, or carry a AR!

Advances in bullet and propellant technology along with platform improvements have brought the M-16 series a long way since the early days of Vietnam. A well-trained rifleman with an optic-equipped M-16A4 is capable of neutralizing threats as far as 700 yards. Shots to 450-500 yards are achievable with the M-4.

Using the standard 7 magazine basic loadout, if it is a difference of carrying 210 rounds of 5.56 or 140 rounds of 7.62, chances are I'm going with the 5.56. Unit / mission requirements will dictate otherwise.

 

[Bilal]

Why is the private arms industry sleeping on it? Why should it be the states responsibility to do everything?

Licensing/permitting regime need to be relaxed for that to happen.

 

[RafaleSlayer]

is that 7.62x39? then the Russians have abandoned it 50 years ago and went the American route after seeing effectiveness of 5.56x45 and made 5.45x39! more over the Russians are testing 6mm ammo and new gun for it.
where ever 7.62x39 and 5.56 have been given a chance 5.56 gets the pick. in Afghanistan the Taliban completely dropped the AK and now they rock AR15s because, lighter, accurate and carry more ammo.

New Russian 6.02×41 Cartridge and Prototype Rifles (AK-22 and Mini SVCh)

In this article we'll take a look at the new Russian 6.02x41 cartridge and the prototype rifles (AK-22 and Mini SVCh) chambered in this cartridge.

www.thefirearmblog.com

If its 7.62x51 then that is a battle rifle cartridge. Its heavy and so is the rifle for it so now a squad will have one or two of these rifle as needed and most others have lighter 5.56 because you can carry more ammo, lighter recoil and accurate. 5.56 is accurate there is no debate.
Imagine walking for miles over uneven terrain carrying a battle rifle, or carry a AR!

the myth that only AK is reliable, is no longer the case. so much work has been done to improve other rifles that their old reliability issues are not common. AK are simple but accuracy is what its all about now. that's why scopes on rifles exist. instead of dumping ammo shot accurately and move on. AK is no longer the king of reliability other rifles offer good reliability too.

War in Ukraine has is the ultimate testing ground of rifles.

I agree there are many reliable weapons and I did not mention AK, I opined that we should get some Russian weapon because they make them simple, reliable, robust and AFFORDABLE and would be open to license manufacturing. Western won't be so open to license manufacturing and would be way more expensive.

 

[Path-Finder]

I agree there are many reliable weapons and I did not mention AK, I opined that we should get some Russian weapon because they make them simple, reliable, robust and AFFORDABLE and would be open to license manufacturing. Western won't be so open to license manufacturing and would be way more expensive.

I highly doubt that AK will be cheaper! If anything AK are becoming similar to western rifles using exotic materials. manufacturing old AK are now are more expensive because they were mostly metallic construction with wooden stocks. Now Russian rifles are using synthetic polymers.

The old notion of simple and affordable is a thing of the past. Past should stay in the past! If your rifle has no optic and no acoustic reduction, still using heavier materials instead of lighter polymers then you have fallen behind.

In Afghanistan given the choice they dumped all AK and picked up AR for a reason.

 

[RafaleSlayer]

I highly doubt that AK will be cheaper! If anything AK are becoming similar to western rifles using exotic materials. manufacturing old AK are now are more expensive because they were mostly metallic construction with wooden stocks. Now Russian rifles are using synthetic polymers.

The old notion of simple and affordable is a thing of the past. Past should stay in the past! If your rifle has no optic and no acoustic reduction, still using heavier materials instead of lighter polymers then you have fallen behind.

In Afghanistan given the choice they dumped all AK and picked up AR for a reason.

Afghanistan case is free supply of a huge stack of brand new weapons left behind by the Americans. In India-Pakistan context I still believe we should stay with the heavier caliber fired through a modern lightweight gun, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Toxic]

Afghanistan case is free supply of a huge stack of brand new weapons left behind by the Americans. In India-Pakistan context I still believe we should stay with the heavier caliber fired through a modern lightweight gun, but that's just my opinion.

Brand new is a massive stretch, ditch the 7.62×39 all together, if they want to keep the 7.62x51 then IMO adopt a AR-10 platform, it would be lighter then the G-3 with modern features like picatiny rails and would also be more ergonomic then the G-3, it would also be a flexible Platform to serve a section dmr with features like a extended barrel.

The Logic of keeping 2 different rifles and Ammunition types in service for two different fronts has come back to bite us in the ass, had we had a single standard rifle in service it could have made choosing a replacement much simpler, IMO it's time abandon the concept of a light SMG platform for CQC, TTP don't occupy towns like they did in the early 2010s where army had to do house to house fighting to retake them, engagements nowadays take place over hundreds of meters.

 

[Samurai]

Does anyone know what's the status of POF's BW20/21 and CW39 rifles? Last I heard they were in the process of inducting those rifles, yet we haven't seen anything on the field.

 

[RafaleSlayer]

Brand new is a massive stretch, ditch the 7.62×39 all together, if they want to keep the 7.62x51 then IMO adopt a AR-10 platform, it would be lighter then the G-3 with modern features like picatiny rails and would also be more ergonomic then the G-3, it would also be a flexible Platform to serve a section dmr with features like a extended barrel.

The Logic of keeping 2 different rifles and Ammunition types in service for two different fronts has come back to bite us in the ass, had we had a single standard rifle in service it could have made choosing a replacement much simpler, IMO it's time abandon the concept of a light SMG platform for CQC, TTP don't occupy towns like they did in the early 2010s where army had to do house to house fighting to retake them, engagements nowadays take place over hundreds of meters.

Brand new is a massive stretch, ditch the 7.62×39 all together, if they want to keep the 7.62x51 then IMO adopt a AR-10 platform, it would be lighter then the G-3 with modern features like picatiny rails and would also be more ergonomic then the G-3, it would also be a flexible Platform to serve a section dmr with features like a extended barrel.

The Logic of keeping 2 different rifles and Ammunition types in service for two different fronts has come back to bite us in the ass, had we had a single standard rifle in service it could have made choosing a replacement much simpler, IMO it's time abandon the concept of a light SMG platform for CQC, TTP don't occupy towns like they did in the early 2010s where army had to do house to house fighting to retake them, engagements nowadays take place over hundreds of meters.

7.62X39 is a pretty decent assault round in my opinion.
Multiple platforms provide flexibility based on mission profile, you can't just use/carry a standard rifle on every mission. 7.62X51 is a battle rifle round well suited for defending fortified positions with long range and hard hitting capabilities. SSG/Para can't use the same they need to carry lighter weapons with higher count, artillery/armored/missile personnel also carry smaller/lighter weapons. I am not sure what the debate is, I am all for newer modern light weight guns but in my opinion our main stay battle round should be 762X51, not 545 or 556 which have proven to be not too effective in many scenarios, there is a lot of literature on that based on US real war experience in Gulf and Afghanistan.

 

[Toxic]

7.62X39 is a pretty decent assault round in my opinion.
Multiple platforms provide flexibility based on mission profile, you can't just use/carry a standard rifle on every mission. 7.62X51 is a battle rifle round well suited for defending fortified positions with long range and hard hitting capabilities. SSG/Para can't use the same they need to carry lighter weapons with higher count, artillery/armored/missile personnel also carry smaller/lighter weapons. I am not sure what the debate is, I am all for newer modern light weight guns but in my opinion our main stay battle round should be 762X51, not 545 or 556 which have proven to be not too effective in many scenarios, there is a lot of literature on that based on US real war experience in Gulf and Afghanistan.

5.56 is a better intermediate cartridge than 7.62x39, there's a reason why it and the 5.45 became the standard rounds for the soviets and NATO, 7.62x39 is outdated, it's much heavier than 5.56 without much difference in performance being worse in some regards actually, the M4 and 5.56 is already the standard rifle and round for the SSG and special troops,

IMO if they want to keep the 7.62x51 they also need to make optics standard issue, there's not much point in a having a heavy battle rifle with a lot stopping power over long distances without actually having the ability to target contacts over long distances with just Iron sights.