Rudranath\";p=\"30727 wrote:Yes there was a problem with improper usage of the rifle by the RNA but regarding quality issues the Indian army finds the INSAS rifles more reliable than their international counterparts.
Hooo boy... hi Rudranath, nice of you to toss in your input. I assume, from your posts that you are from a fauji family or at least closely related to one. That could explain you 'our nation can do no wrong' line of opinion. Fair one.
But I certainly hope in the process you're not blinding yourself to the enormous stupidity surrounding the INSAS. I hope you extricate yourself from the misery.
The source you should least rely on to support your arguments is our national media(Forget the silly regionals). They are notoriously ignorant in most matters concerning the area of arms. The are liable to qoute some monday-morning officer's verbal wank without bothering to verify if the talk is fact or crap.
I particularly find the bit about the INSAS being more reliable than their international counterparts, a thorough bucket of crap. You're simply allowing yourself to be swallowed by the silly establishment propaganda...
Indian Army finds INSAS rifles reliable
Amazing!... Isn't the army supposed to know that already? Its like saying 'The Indian Army finds T-72 drivable'
The result of the tests, conducted at Mhow between August 18 and 20, would be communicated to Kathmandu, which had complained about the rifle's "unreliability" and blamed it for the reverses it suffered against the Maoists.
I don't remember them blaming the old SLRs, M-4s, Galils, and MINIMIs though....
The report says out of 44 rifles, only 15 faced stoppages, and only three more than eight stoppages. Barring the three, the average stoppage was only 0.66 per cent, the report adds.
Forget averages... aren't statistics supposed to be unreliable? In any case 15 rifles in 44 (Thats close to half) is a lot and one doesn't need statistics to see that.
Anyway, one should try to show the fantastic 'statistics' to the families of the dead. He'll probably be requested to shove it up his posterior orifice.
Well INSAS is not a Army product but still they are backing it.
National prestige. Probably ordered to make sure the tests come out positive. Remember, in the hour of Nepals desperation, we peddled at discounted rates, large consignments of the rifle (even before the Indian Army was fully rearmed with the INSAS, if I recall)to simply offset the western and perhaps Chinese military aid and influence that was trickling in. Geo-politics yaar.
Now we don't want to look like shady untrustworthy merchants do we? The tests, I believe, were an exercise in procuring deniablilty.
If there was indeed a quality problem with the OFB product then the Indian army would not have the hesitated in throwing them back at OFB guys and asked them to get them corrected before inducting them in the IA just like the OFB made artillery guns were initially rejected on quality grounds before the OFB guys received enlightment at the hands of the top army brass and sorted out the quality issues
You used the word 'IF'... well that should mean you believe the INSAS didn't and doesn't have problems. Attitudes like that are a disservice to the nation and certainly officers who blather in a similar vein are indirectly damaging their own fraternity.
BTW did you get to handle the INSAS Carbine or have they been not inducted yet.
The INSAS carbine picture looks awesome like the Israeli Uzi.
The INSAS carbine is an abomination.
Thank heavens its not in service.
In 20 or so years of 'development' they've not been able to 'perfect' the silly thing. The army gave it the boot. It speaks volumes about the kind of farce we have for firearms R&D and industry. While there are 'shorty' or carbine versions of virtually all known assault rifles, I'm wondering what's so special about the INSAS that makes it so difficult to achieve. Think about it.
Number one- it doesn't look even remotely like the UZI
Number two- If you think it looks cool, you'll probably like the Chauchat.
Its lighter and easier to use.
The advantage of smaller lighter rounds is lost. The marginal difference is even more damning when you end up with the same magazine capacity after all the hoopla.
When establishment folks rave about its ease of use, they should explain how it can be any more easier to use than its counterparts. I'm afraid, the answer will be next to nil.
I have heard the jawans mention the accuracy issues when firing in burst mode,but is still better than the AK series in terms of accuracy.
Any rifle will have it's accuracy go to rat-shit in burst mode. It is more accurate because the 5.56mm round is small in comparison and transfers a gentler recoil. Plus the INSAS is a long rifle compared to the AK- It obviously has a longer barrel which is conducive to accuracy. The AK was never designed to be a tack driver. Its purpose is to facilitate good volumes of reasonably accurate fire at intermediate ranger. Also remember that the heavier AK round as a result of natural physics, retains its Kinetic Energy over a longer distance than the light 5.56 round. I believe the US troops in Afghanistan found their 5.56mm rifles severely lacking in 'oomph' whilst battling Taliban and AQ strong holds. It was found the AK 7.62mm rounds were carrying lethal energy at ranges where the 5.56mm rounds expended most of their lethal energy. Thats why a lot of 7.62mm M14's were hastily resurrected from cold storage. Same in Iraq.
Doesn't give you a sore shoulder like you would get firing SLR.
An army that can't stomach a rifle kick, is an army of pansies.
As a matter of fact when the INSAS was first rolled out to BSF in 2001-02,the BSF jawans in my Dad's unit found it awesome in urban combat as compare to the SLR.
You said 'first time' so I'm taking the liberty of assuming their opinions have changed since then. betcha.
They loved the transparent magzine,not every one realises the benefits of knowing the number of rounds left in your magzine unless you have been in that crunch situation..
I have no crib against transparent magazines it is a good feature- the issue is with quality.
Also, I hope you aren't assuming the transparent magazine is an Indian innovation
In any case with the bloody establishment thats so stingy about ammunition one may well find transparent magazines a good expediency. You can count your handful of rounds to your hearts content.
I think its an awesome weapon to replace SLR atleast for COIN forces involved in close combat,especially in the valley.
The word 'awesome' stinks mighty in relation to the INSAS. The Brits yomped around in COIN all over the world with the SLR for close to 40 years. I think it acquitted itself pretty well in their hands.
While I'm not a big fan of the AK, it is just as, if not better suited for the role.
Also Mr.Jonah did you try to fire the INSAS with one hand.
Why would anybody want to fire a service rifle with one hand? they've taken the trouble to provide it with a butt stock... might as well use it.
Since you mentioned it, do you suppose you can't fire an AK, SLR, .303, Bren, flintlock or blunderbuss one handed? Want one handed?- try the Ultimax100(which is supposed to be an LMG)
Also on display were modified INSAS rifles, which not only provided greater mobility but also greater accuracy during night firing.
So why are these modified INSAS rifles not in service?
What kind of greater mobility?
What kind of accuracy at night?
The INSAS has a generic attachment rail for optical devices on the receiver cover as a standard. So all current assault rifles in service around the world.
Night vision scopes are nothing new. They've been around since the 50's. Only the technology has advanced to provide more compact and better night vision.
The details of Night vision devices you posted are generic. Nothing out of the ordinary. Almost every developed/developing nation with a defense and electronics industry worth its name, manufactures or license manufactures them. Of the models listed, only two are rifle mountable. Both are as generic as an NV weapon sight can get. They are also massive and add a lot to the rifles weight. The rest are all NV binocs of various flavors and technologies.
Whilst I appreciate that this is a private sector unit thats manufacturing them, the technology is hardly awesome or original. Hope they keep up and get down to tweaking stuff and perhaps come up with something thats really original.
So while the potential Rambo is blundering around at night with an INSAS lugged with a massive Night vision scope he'll be very mobile I must say...
Captain Gautam who had modified the INSAS rifles said: "The rifle has a trigger mechanism which enables it to be fired with one hand without curtailing its effectiveness, even while talking on the radio or throwing a hand grenade.
All due credit to Capt. Gautam for his efforts, but what exactly is he talking about?
It sounds so banal...just some lame talk for the press benefit. I suppose he's trying to say that you cant do what he described with other guns?
Why is this great innovation not in service then?
Surely I hope he's not talking about the horrid dual trigger mechanism of the INSAS carbine. It's as bannana republic as it can get.
And to make the firing more accurate during the night, the sight has been modified giving greater accuracy and greater effectiveness for night kills.
What kind of modifications? What world shaking innovation is this that hasn't seen light anywhere else?
Perhaps he means flip up luminous sights... perhaps...goodness...radioactive tritium!
It's as lame as a statement can get.
The sling has also been modified so that the rifle can be slung across the front keeping both arms free and at the back, along greater mobility during crawling or para-dropping operations.
You call that an achievement? The AK cant be slung across the front?...or back? How does a soldier carry it then? One handed?
The H&K MP-5 has a superb purpose built three point sling and interface system for just such a purpose.
Even the M-16 has a 3 round burst mode
While I'm not damning the three round burst mode, limiting the soldier to this is an issue that is more to do with economics than actual tactical needs. The US decision was flawed.
Most current assault rifles have all modes(1,3,Auto) to allow the soldier to adapt his firing to the circumstance. This is no big feat of technology. The INSAS trigger assembly is a lift from the Belgian FNC. The FNC has all modes available. This should have been retained.
Certainly the 3 round burst is not an bad feature- I like it too. But there are circumstance when full auto fire is a definite medicine and that's when its sorely missed
The Army bitched about it anyway.
The M-16 has triburst with a 30 round magazine- that allows a soldier 10 controlled bursts.
The INSAS has triburst with a 20 round magazine allowing about 6 and a half bursts.
The terrorist has full auto with a 30 round magazine allowing any number of rounds to be fired at will.
With a terrorist energetically hosing you down with an 30 round magazine, a jawan would have to change his magazine twice in the same amount of time it takes to empty an AK magazine.
Not so nice for morale.
Blame the stingy babus and the establishment.
The INSAS LMG would serve better as a service rifle.
The Russian AN-94 Abakan has a 2 round burst mode.
Explain why the Abkan is not in service anywhere.
Yes the OFB babu is from the dino age and is the culprit most of time who messes the quality of the guns but when suitable enlightment is provided by the army guys even he can deliver some great goods.
The Army has provided more than enough enlightenment to the babu brigade.
The problem is getting it past the thick skin of the babu.