Article

2008-12-02 India-Pakistan

'How can our .303 rifles fight against AK-47?'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2008-12-02 16:54|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Here we go again. The cops want to be Storm Troopers.

Posted by Iblis 2008-12-02 16:58|| 2008-12-02 16:58|| Front Page Top

#2 Response: Lee Enfield L96A1

Posted by Besoeker 2008-12-02 17:15|| 2008-12-02 17:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Read the previous article. Not only are they carrying a Enfield .303 (80 yr. plus old bolt gun) but many if not most have never fired them due to lack of ammo and NO ranges.

He was lucky to get off 3 shots let alone hit anything. The rifles were good in 1915, adequate in 1940, antiques in 2008.

Posted by tipover 2008-12-02 17:17|| 2008-12-02 17:17|| Front Page Top

#4 Look, old bolt-action Mausers in the hands of civilians in Peru in the 90's were enough to put a serious dent in the Sendoro Luminoso.

If they'd kept the guns in good condition and PRACTICED with them they'd probably be very adequate for the task.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-12-02 17:22|| 2008-12-02 17:22|| Front Page Top

#5 I know that India has made much more modern versions of the Enfield, chambered in 7.62mm NATO, which should be cheap-enough ammunition to practice with.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-12-02 17:23|| 2008-12-02 17:23|| Front Page Top

#6 With a spray and pray AK-47 he would have just filled the air with lead, and probably missed his target anyway.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia">Rambler in Virginia 2008-12-02 17:25|| 2008-12-02 17:25|| Front Page Top

#7 I would respectfully submit that success in these sorts of events has more to do with effective leadership, training, and the determination of the operator than the age or type of weapon used. As I recall, one of the first casualties was a senior (if not the senior) counter terrorism chief. That cound not have had a positive impact on leadership at the scene.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-12-02 17:29|| 2008-12-02 17:29|| Front Page Top

#8 do they not teach them how too aim? Old weapon or not if the aim was true then he might have at least winged him

Posted by rabid whitetail 2008-12-02 17:48|| 2008-12-02 17:48|| Front Page Top

#9 The lack of training, especially live firing, is what doomed the Indian cops armed with the SMLE. The old British .303 round is a deadly one, and if any of the terrorists had actually been hit by one, they would have been badly wounded if not killed. I wonder if the Indian cops are issued hollow points or not? A hollow pointed .303 would be a nightmare wounding bullet.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-12-02 17:54|| 2008-12-02 17:54|| Front Page Top

#10 Three items for which we can be thankful:

1. It happened there, and not here. Thank you "W".
2. The Indians were successful in capturing one of the terrs alive.
3. The Indians were successful in eventually bringing an end to it.

Posted by Besoeker 2008-12-02 17:59|| 2008-12-02 17:59|| Front Page Top

#11 Also, the Afghanis put a lot of Soviets in the ground using SMLEs during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - but then the Afghanis would practice anywhere they chose, and did enough live firing to be reasonably accurate.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-12-02 18:02|| 2008-12-02 18:02|| Front Page Top

#12 'How can our .303 rifles fight against AK-47?'

The gun is more than capable, it's the shooter who was not up to the task. Lack of training, lack of practice, or lack of temperment. Not at all unusual though.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-12-02 18:52|| 2008-12-02 18:52|| Front Page Top

#13 When I was growing up in the Australian bush in the 1950s the only rifles I ever saw were war surplus Lee Enfield's from the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, and every farmer had one to shoot kangaroos and for the rifle range. With open sights they are very accurate at 400 yards and more, and a roo has a smaller heart shot area than a Jihadi.

Posted by Grunter 2008-12-02 18:54|| 2008-12-02 18:54|| Front Page Top

#14 Lee Enfield .303's, of course.

Posted by Grunter 2008-12-02 18:55|| 2008-12-02 18:55|| Front Page Top

#15 do they not teach them how too aim? Old weapon or not if the aim was true then he might have at least winged him

Your comment reminds me of an old Hindu saying.

"How can one expect a monkey to appreciate the taste of ginger?"

Posted by Gruger Smith5247 2008-12-02 18:57|| 2008-12-02 18:57|| Front Page Top

#16 Weren't there a lot of casualties in WWI? How did that happen?

Posted by Jeremiah Thaise1218 2008-12-02 19:14|| 2008-12-02 19:14|| Front Page Top

#17 I will concede that the Enfield was a fine rifle in it's time but at short range against a full or semi auto in trained hands it is not adequate. This cop had guts if not the skills to get those 3 rounds off.

Of course training matters but most police do not have the best training to face an armed combatant. Swat officers here in the US perhaps but that is specialized (read elite) training with hand-picked people. Beat Cops? Not hardly.

It still doesn't excuse the Political, management and supervisory mindset that allowed this lack of basic firearms training and practice. And the issuance of out of date equipment. Especially by a up and coming world power in such a dangerous part of the world.

Posted by tipover 2008-12-02 19:20|| 2008-12-02 19:20|| Front Page Top

#18 Thank goodness US troops were well equipped and trained at the beginning of WWII when we were an up and coming power.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-12-02 19:58|| 2008-12-02 19:58|| Front Page Top

#19 Assuming that the story is accurate, I too will give the sub-inspector credit fir;

1. Marching to the sound of the guns
2. Opening fire, attempting to engage

Thinking back to "Men Against Fire" by SLA Marshall, the mere act of taking offensive action sets this constable apart from the vast majority of combatants that have ever faced incoming fire.

Quoting Teddy Roosevelt:

It Is Not The Critic Who Counts

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

Posted by Lone Ranger 2008-12-02 20:02|| 2008-12-02 20:02|| Front Page Top

#20 The Carcano M91/38 rifle wasn't the best rifle in the world either by 1963, but still could do a lot of damage on a target by a trained rifleman.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-12-02 20:10|| 2008-12-02 20:10|| Front Page Top

#21 Thinking back to "Men Against Fire" by SLA Marshall, the mere act of taking offensive action sets this constable apart from the vast majority of combatants that have ever faced incoming fire.

I've read elsewhere that Marshall's assertions were tosh. The problem with US (and most other) forces has generally been that they were too trigger-happy, not that they were reluctant to shoot. The Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars were characterized by native allies who expended too much ammunition haphazardly without really looking at where their adversary was.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2008-12-02 22:49|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-12-02 22:49|| Front Page Top

#22 FWIW, my Dad, God rest his soul, used to tell me fondly about when he was in the Army in the mid '50s in Germany. He grew up in the country and was a very good shot (though he'd always tell me he was nothing compared to Grandad).

He'd often recount that shooting all kinds of guns all the time was something he loved about the Army. He expressed great admiration for the older NCOs (WW2 or Korea vets in the company he commanded) who could fire the bolt action rifles (1903 Springfields I guess) at such high rates of fire and with such accuracy that he felt they would be at no disadvantage to modern firearms (he used to complain a lot about the M-1 so there was some bias).

I reckon most people do not try to fire bolt action rifles too quickly as they focus on hunting. But, when such rifles were issued to soldiers the situation must have been different and they probably would have held up fine vs. an AK-47. But I'm no expert. My son will probably think I'm a good shot by our citified standards and I'll have to tell him about Grandad. But at least he'll learn to shoot.

Dad used to love reading Rantburg, btw.

Posted by JAB 2008-12-02 23:12|| 2008-12-02 23:12|| Front Page Top

#23 God bless your Dad, JAB, sounds like a great man ;-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-12-02 23:31|| 2008-12-02 23:31|| Front Page Top

23:52 OldSpook
23:40 OldSpook
23:32 eltoroverde
23:31 Frank G
23:12 JAB
23:01 3dc
23:00 3dc
22:56 Zhang Fei
22:55 Frank G
22:49 Zhang Fei
22:39 DMFD
22:31 tu3031
22:28 Frank G
22:27 USN,Ret.
22:25 Jolutch Mussolini7800
22:19 tu3031
22:16 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:07 JosephMendiola
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:50 Frank G
21:49 USN,Ret.
21:41 Skunky Glins 5***
21:24 Hellfish
21:05 rjschwarz