• Advertisement
Kiehberg.in -  Outdoor gear and sports equipment

INSAS

Posts related to rifles.
cottage cheese
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Shillong-Dimapur

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby cottage cheese » Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:51 am

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.

About looks:
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.


Marginally lighter.

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?
Details?
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.

Good night.
Last edited by cottage cheese on Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:09 am, edited 5 times in total.



Grumpy
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:43 am
Location: UK

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby Grumpy » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:50 am

Don`t know about re-inventing the M-16. Re-inventing the AK47 more like.......60 years later.
Why do Governments throw money away on developing crap ? Because they`re stupid. Officially it`s to provide the defence industry with jobs. Unofficially it`s to develope national pride. Witness the SA80......which has now cost in excess of £1500 ( c. IR 127,500 ) per unit - and has only just developed into a usable weapon.
Another problem is that if you try to impose new technology on an industry that has no experience of it you are asking for trouble. Then when the developement costs start to run away the Governments concerned impose cost-cutting measures which cause further problems and guarantee that quality further declines.
The developement of a 5.56/.223 assault rifle is a dumb idea anyway - witness the problems the Americans have had in Iraq where the M16 has proved a pathetic man-stopper with the result that 7.62 M14s have had to be re-issued from storage........and as I understand it, the INSAS proved incapable of handling the .223 reliably anyway and has had to be downloaded. You`re going to send your troops into a war zone armed with a pea-shooter ?
The M8 replacement for the M16 was developed as a .223. Experience with the .223 in Iraq has meant that it has had to be redesigned for the new 6.8mm cartridge.....which was easy enough to do as the 6.8 is basically a necked-up .223 with a 107 gr .260" bullet.
Remember the reasons that the Americans adopted the .223 M16 in the first place ? Because troops in Vietnam didn`t like carrying the weight of the MI4 in field conditions because it was heavy. So the MI6 was adopted.....and the 5.56 NATO/.223 enforced upon the rest of NATO. Contempory soldiers are obviously bloody feeble in that they can`t carry a weapon that will save their lives. It`s a different matter when they go to war and discover that the lightweight piece of crap they`re carrying is a waste of time ! Then they start screaming for the 7.62.
I don`t know why you`re surprised that the INSAS .223 makes .22 sized holes through 4" pieces of timber Jonah - it is, after all, a centrefire .22 ..............
Looks like your troops, like ours, are going to be equipped with an underpowered junk weapon for the forseeable future.......except that the INSAS is even lower powered.......and hasn`t had the benefit of 26 years of use in field conditions and hundreds of millions of pounds of developement to make the rubbish work properly.
We need to pray for all our troops because their weaponry isn`t going to help them much..........................



User avatar
Pran
Eminent IFG'an
Eminent IFG'an
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Bengaluru, Karnataka

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby Pran » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:54 am

>He seems to talking about these Night Vision Devices from an Indian Company

Talk about a company based in Doopanahalli making NVs :shock:

Pran


"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it."

Rudranath
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby Rudranath » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:35 pm

cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote: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.

Well i not from a fauji family.

cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote: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.


Well DRDO which made the INSAS must be stupid,IA which tested them in the intensive user trials and the Kargil war must be stupid, IAF Garuds which use the INSAS must be stupid and the BSF,CRPF,CISF,SSB,IRB,Kolkatta Police and the other state police must be stupid.


cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote:The source you should least rely on to support your arguments is our national media(Forget the silly regionals).


Well "Indian Express" is not reliable? So when "Chacko Express" is printed count me as your first customer. :)


cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote:
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'


Check the context in which the statement was made.The RNA alleged that there were not reliable. So the IA conducted live fire exercises and concluded the INSAS rifles were indeed reliable. For this reason the newspaper headline says "Indian Army finds INSAS rifles reliable".


cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote:
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 lotand one doesn't need statistics to see that.


Half of 44 is 22 and 1/4th of 44 is 11.
You say 15 is close to half of 44, well 15 is more close to 11 than 22.

Well is this not above the international average?

cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote: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.


If the dead RNA soldiers did not use the rifles correctly it's their mistake not the gun's.If a careless person crashes his car against a pole it is his mistake, he can't blame the car for his stupidity.

cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote:
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.


The allegations regarding INSAS started after the Government of India stopped the military aid to nepal after the King Gyanendra seized power after dismissing the elected government. Why did these allegations were not made before when the RNA was happily shooting down the Maoists with the same INSAS?

The RNA's allegations against INSAS is more to score a brownie point against India rather than an factual greviance.

Regarding nepal getting chinese military aid, well it started well before in the 1980's and nepal continued to be a dumping ground of the suppa duppa chinese crap like the T56 rifle(reverse engineered russian Ak-47) which had an funny chinese addition of a non-detachable spike-shaped bayonet which most likely was used to stick a white cloth and wave to the enemy before surrendering like the PLA did in the vietnam war.



cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote:
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.


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.

About looks:
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.



Number one- It does look similar to Uzi.

Image
Indian Modern Submachine Carbine (MSMC) a.k.a INSAS Carbine


Number two- Chackoji it does look cool no? :)

cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote:
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.


Well I did not say 'first time'. The person whose views i posted said 'first time'.

Well at a conservative estimate 300,000 INSAS rifles are in currently in service with 300+ million rounds per annum being produced.
This only means that the service personnel are happy with the INSAS and instead of the crappy Romanian AK's they prefer the INSAS.

cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote: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.


Well I don't know in which operations "The Brits yomped around in COIN all over the world with the SLR for close to 40 years".

Suitable enligtment is needed here and hope you will be willing to provide it.


cottage cheese\";p=\"30792 wrote:
The Russian AN-94 Abakan has a 2 round burst mode.

Explain why the Abkan is not in service anywhere.


Well the Abkan is certainly in service with Russian forces but in limited quantity. Since 1990's as Russia faced the economic crisis they did not change over from the Ak-74M over to the Abakan due to lack of funding. Now as the price of oil is $100 and Russia has large oil resource which it exports to earn money ,you will see more of the Abakan's in the service a few years from now. :wink:
Last edited by Rudranath on Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Lawman
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby Lawman » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:55 pm

IOF made Zittara Multi-purpose Carbine.
The website: http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/25.htm

Lawman
Last edited by Lawman on Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.



cottage cheese
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Shillong-Dimapur

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby cottage cheese » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:02 pm

Rudranath\";p=\"30831 wrote:Well i not from a fauji family.My father and mother both are bankers while my brother is software engineer working in pune and i am doing diploma in computer science.Well this is my short intoduction.


Well thank you for taking the trouble of introducing yourself friend, but when you mentioned "the BSF jawans in my Dad's unit found it awesome in urban combat as compare to the SLR." I was naturally making the insinuation.

Well at least you've clarified on that.

Well DRDO which made the INSAS must be stupid

Yes... double that.

IA which tested them in the intensive user trials and the Kargil war must be stupid,

Halfway there.... a lot of the top brass and their lackeys are and it's these folks who call the shots. Sincere apologies to army folks at IFG...no direct offense intended.

IAF Garuds which use the INSAS must be stupid

Using INSAS out of compulsion is not stupid.

BSF,CRPF,CISF,SSB,IRB,Kolkatta Police and the other state police must be stupid.

Well, if you say so.

I come from a service background and I don't fool myself about the flaws in the system.

Do remember friend that my raves and rants are against a very flawed system and mentality. Not individual organizations or units. I reserve my choice epithets for the likes of IOFB and DRDO because they represent (At least for me) a very visible face of everything that is stupid, wrong, moribund, wasteful and deceptive in the system.

Well "Indian Express" is not reliable?

Absolutely not buddy. Not in the field of arms.
Thats what I said in the first place.

So when "Chacko Express" is printed count me as your first customer. :)


Pardon my ignorance I don't get the Malayali connection here- explain.

Check the context in which the statement was made.The RNA alleged that there were not reliable. So the IA conducted live fire exercises and concluded the INSAS rifles were indeed reliable. For this reason the newspaper headline says "Indian Army finds INSAS rifles reliable".

I was being sarcastic about the statement - Beg your Pardon
Well they were right, they weren't reliable... that's why they complained in the first place. Certainly they didn't use it as a rifle should ideally be used. But look at the other side of the coin- zero complaints about the even more numerous SLRs, 9mm Cabines, Brens, or the Galils, M-4s, Minimis etc. which serve alongside the INSAS. Isn't it quite a coincidence that only the INSAS should have produced bitter complaints?

Tests were ordered. The IA didn't go on a unilateral bleeding heart mission to bail out the IOFB.

Half of 44 is 22 and 1/4th of 44 is 11.
You say 15 is close to half of 44, well 15 is more close to 11 than 22.

Well, no doubt exact figures are not what I stated. But take a ballpark figure- Didn't I say 'close to half'.
Also where the hell did they come up with the magic 44 figure? Why should the marginal performance of 44 rifles be considered the last word? Where were the test rifles from?

Well is this not above the international average?


This is just an average figure below which a firearm obviously has serious problems. It's not the last word. In any case virtually every assault rifle since the beginning, that was produced in significant numbers had a WELL above average performance. That's why many are so long lived. Why are we happy that we are on the borderline?

If the dead RNA soldiers did not use the rifles correctly it's their mistake not the gun's.If a careless person crashes his car against a pole it is his mistake, he can't blame the car for his stupidity.

Thats assuming that the car is well made. If a poorly made car exacerbates a stupid drivers' inability to drive properly...the blame goes both ways. I was driving the point.

Secondly don't look down on Nepali soldiers. They provide some of the finest regiments in the IA. The RNA is poorly led. While arm-chair-warriors like us authoritatively pass judgment on these poor people, they were and are taking bullets on our behalf in the trouble spots.

The allegations regarding INSAS started after the Government of India stopped the military aid to nepal after the King Gyanendra seized power after dismissing the elected government. Why did these allegations were not made before when the RNA was happily shooting down the Maoists with the same INSAS?


Thats a just a one sided assumption. A 'holier-than-thou' one at that. It doesn't register with you that the service rifle of the RNA is basically the SLR. The INSAS was a recent addition at that point of time and no where as numerous as the SLR. Only the INSAS managed to fail.

The RNA's allegations against INSAS is more to score a brownie point against India rather than an factual greviance.

Score brownie points for what joy? Prove that the greviance is not factual without clutching at the Mhow tests. They were a magnificent charade.

Regarding nepal getting chinese military aid, well it started well before in the 1980's and nepal continued to be a dumping ground of the suppa duppa chinese crap like the T56 rifle(reverse engineered russian Ak-47) which had an funny chinese addition of a non-detachable spike-shaped bayonet which most likely was used to stick a white cloth and wave to the enemy before surrendering like the PLA did in the vietnam war.


As I mentioned I'm no big fan of the AK, but it gets my respect. You should too. Unless you assume it shoots plastic BBs and its rounds simply bounce off your skin. Thank you so much for lecturing me about the Chinese AKs and their attachments.... I was simply ignorant of such cold hard facts.
As to your reference to the PLA and certain very well researched historical facts, I'm at a loss for words. You should write books on alternate history.

Look, here buddy, I have never called the INSAS crap. No body should. It simply a poorly made weapon and thats that. It will function satisfactorily in ideal conditions... thats why they've somehow made their way to service. Entering service should not be the "pass' certificate for its excellence. The fact is the poor quality shows up only when the s**t hits the fan. Calling the AK crap is a pretty stupid thing.

Image
Indian Modern Submachine Carbine (MSMC) a.k.a INSAS Carbine

You're misquoting yourself. Thats the MSMC ...not the INSAS carbine and certainly not aka INSAS carbine.

This is the INSAS carbine...
Image


Number two- Chackoji it does look cool no?

No actually it doesn't. I'm an old guard when it comes to arms design and I think its a fart of a design. If I must add, its another farcical piracy- this time of the H&K MP-7 PDW...even down to the awkward curved magazine in the pistol grip.

It obviously fires the very 'original' 5.56mmX30mm... which was intended for the MINSAS...which is a clumsy execution of the Western PDW concept... look up FN P90, H&K MP-7 etc.

I personally think, what ever the effort of certain sincere individuals in the system, the design is fated to be another of those pointless money sinks.

Also forgive my ignorance about the 'Chackoji' thing and I have no problems if it's in jest. But if it has other connotations, I'd request you to be a little more careful son.

Well at a conservative estimate 300,000 INSAS rifles are in currently in service with 300+ million rounds per annum being produced.


There are 300,000+ INSAS rifles because its supposed to be the service rifle of the armed forces. Not because the government likes to collect guns for parades. 300+ million rounds is obviously needed to feed the 300,000 rifles. What say we don't manufacture ammo?

This only means that the service personnel are happy with the INSAS and instead of the crappy Romanian AK's they prefer the INSAS.


What a simplistic deduction. The forces are happy with the INSAS because there are lots and lots of them.

I guess you chose to ignore the clear reports of the poor feedback post-Kargil. Even the CAG pulled up the OFB for its inefficiency and inability to address the problems in a transparent, efficient and timely manner.

There are 300,000 rifles because the point of no return was crossed. Even to produce trial batches the government needs to invest big time in R&D(No matter how farcical), machinery and related infrastructure.... and you don't produce trial batches in 10's and 20's... you produce a big lot to make sure the spectrum of usage and feed back is as wide as possible. Now how on earth was our good babu going to let all that expenditure go to waste if the rifle was not inducted for service. So it was simply 'get it through anyway and we'll sort out the problems later.' Huge economic issues here.

Certainly the Romanian MPiKM is not as good as the Russian AKM, but we have 1.8 lakh Romanian AKs because they are crappy right? Did you ever use it? Why is it crappy? Even with the INSAS supposedly in full service, why are the crappy AKs still in use? Why are the special forces fighting to switch to stuff like the Israeli Tavor? In the mean time the SF prefer to continue using the AK because they are super crappy right?

Yeah of course, how could I forget... INSAS the best rifle in the world... my country right or wrong...

Well I don't know in which operations "The Brits yomped around in COIN all over the world with the SLR for close to 40 years".
Suitable enligtment is needed here and hope you will be willing to provide it.


I can see living history is your weak point. The SLR served as Britains service rifle through several conflict eras and zones:
To name a few:
Malaya, Oman, Kenya, Borneo, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Falklands, Gulf War I...etc. read them up.

Well the Abkan is certainly in service with Russian forces but in limited quantity. Since 1990's as Russia faced the economic crisis they did not change over from the Ak-74M over to the Abakan due to lack of funding. Now as the price of oil is $100 and Russia has large oil resource which it exports to earn money ,you will see more of the Abakan's in the service a few years from now. :wink:


When people say 'limited' service... it more often than not, means the evaluation batches. Nothing more.
The arms being in the inventory doesn't mean they are in active service.
That could imply that the Steyr AUG, M-16, FAMAS, H&K P7, SIG226 etc are in Indian service simply because we hold a handful of trial/evaluation samples in our inventory.

The AK74M is a decent weapon thats battle proven.

The end result is simple economics: The Abkan AN94 has bee around for a while now. The Russians are practical... The Abkan, inspite of its innovative features and allegedly 'positive' performance, doesn't provide enough of a performance and technology leap to justify the expenditures in rearming the whole nations armed forces. This also happened with the magnificent and truly innovative H&K G11. The G11 project brought H&K close to bankruptcy because the project was dependent on the prospects of the US accepting it... in the end, in spite of its really superb innovation and solutions, the end result was that it was decided it did not provide an adequate leap in technology to justify the costs of rearming. As a somewhat direct result H&K went under the hammer, and the last I checked, it was a subsidiary of British Aerospace... correct me Grumpy if I'm wrong.
Last edited by cottage cheese on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:46 pm, edited 4 times in total.



Grumpy
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:43 am
Location: UK

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby Grumpy » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:23 pm

The AN94 `Abakan` is much more expensive than the AK74 - 5 to 6 times more expensive is what is generally reckoned - but that`s not the only reason that it has not been universally adopted by the Russian military: The Abakan is extremely complicated weapon which raises serious problems when used in field conditions by ordinary soldiers. Training on the weapon takes much more time than the AKs and is therefore more expensive, field stripping requires much more time and care and maintenence costs are far greater. Coupled with this is the fact that the grip angle/location is uncomfortable and the stock covers the trigger when folded making the weapon unusable as a sub-machine gun.
From the point of view of the `bean counters` and the `grunt` in the field the Akaban is a liability.
The Abakan is in use by Russian elite forces and the MVD but will never be generally adopted because it is just not suitable for general use.
The two round burst-fire facility of the Abakan was actually well thought out. The gun is accurate and has an extremely high cyclic rate - around 1600 rounds per minute if memory serves me right. This allows automatic `double taps` to be delivered to the same location largely getting rid of the necessity of armour piercing bullets to penetrate body armour. The high rate of fire coupled with the trigger mechanism and a highly effective muzzle brake allows for a very accurate and high rate of fire even though restricted to two round bursts.

Rudraneth, you`re missing the point: The reason that Indian soldiers like the INSAS is for exactly the same reasons that American troops liked the M16 - it is light, compact and has minimal recoil. The fact is though that it is a poorly built, underpowered piece of junk. Jingoistic fervour doesn`t alter that fact and is one of the main reasons reasons that India has allowed its troops to be equipped with the garbage. You can be as patriotic as you like but sending your troops off to war with an unreliable, underpowered weapon is treachery in my book.

As regards the reliability: It`s an interesting fact that the military are damn good at deceiving themselves when it comes to testing something that they really want. Both the M16 and SA80 tested very well by their respective military users.....but when they were used in combat conditions - especially desert combat conditions - they proved hopelessly unreliable. The M16 was modified comparitively easily.........the SA80 cost an absolute fortune to sort out.

So the Romanian AK47 is a piece of crap. ALL AK47s are crap. They`re also remarkable reliable, extraordinarily easy to field strip ..... and considerably more powerful than the INSAS which won`t even function reliably with normal power 5.56 ammo so has to be used with specially made low power ammo.
Last edited by Grumpy on Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Grumpy
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:43 am
Location: UK

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby Grumpy » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:09 pm

CC, I wrote my post at the same time as you were writing yours so have managed to effectively duplicate much of what you said.......albeit I used rather more basic language than you !
That also accounts for it being I that said that the INSAS was a `piece of crap`- not you.
You obviously have the same concerns with your military being issued with an inferior weapon as I do with ours. I expressed my doubts about the projected SA80 when the concept was first announced.......so long ago that I was definitely a young man at the time.........and I wasn`t the only one to have doubts - by a very large number. The fact is that we were proved right. We were also right about the NATO adoption of the 5.56 and the adoption of the 9mm Beretta 92F by the US forces.

The FAL is a superb rifle. It doesn`t fit the into the concept of modern military thinking too well though. The INSAS might be liked for its light weight and firepower in urban locations but in field conditions it will be hopeless. When the opposing forces are 400 yards away the troops might as well lie back and make a cup of tea because they CANNOT effectively contribute to the engagement with the powder puff INSAS - OR any other 5.56. That means that the demands on the snipers and machine gunners in any encounter are likely to be heavy. Strangely enough, so are their weapons ............................. The fact is, that in conventional warfare the rifle is often far more effective than the `assault` weapon`. The assault rifle is a necessary compromise however in the matter of using the 5.56 NATO it is too heavily compromised.

Heckler & Koch WERE bought by the Royal Ordnance division of BAe in 1991 however in 2002 the company was sold to `H&K-Participation-GmbH`, a new consortium comprising two former H&K managers, Ernst Mauch and Dr. Dirk Holzknecht, detergent manufacturer Andreas Heeschen and British arms dealer Keith Halsey.



cottage cheese
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Shillong-Dimapur

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby cottage cheese » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:37 pm

Grumpy\";p=\"30846 wrote:CC, I wrote my post at the same time as you were writing yours so have managed to effectively duplicate much of what you said.......albeit I used rather more basic language than you !
That also accounts for it being I that said that the INSAS was a `piece of crap`- not you.
You obviously have the same concerns with your military being issued with an inferior weapon as I do with ours. I expressed my doubts about the projected SA80 when the concept was first announced.......so long ago that I was definitely a young man at the time.........and I wasn`t the only one to have doubts - by a very large number. The fact is that we were proved right. We were also right about the NATO adoption of the 5.56 and the adoption of the 9mm Beretta 92F by the US forces.

The FAL is a superb rifle. It doesn`t fit the into the concept of modern military thinking too well though. The INSAS might be liked for its light weight and firepower in urban locations but in field conditions it will be hopeless. When the opposing forces are 400 yards away the troops might as well lie back and make a cup of tea because they CANNOT effectively contribute to the engagement with the powder puff INSAS - OR any other 5.56. That means that the demands on the snipers and machine gunners in any encounter are likely to be heavy. Strangely enough, so are their weapons ............................. The fact is, that in conventional warfare the rifle is often far more effective than the `assault` weapon`. The assault rifle is a necessary compromise however in the matter of using the 5.56 NATO it is too heavily compromised.

Heckler & Koch WERE bought by the Royal Ordnance division of BAe in 1991 however in 2002 the company was sold to `H&K-Participation-GmbH`, a new consortium comprising two former H&K managers, Ernst Mauch and Dr. Dirk Holzknecht, detergent manufacturer Andreas Heeschen and British arms dealer Keith Halsey.


Hi Grumps,

Thanks for the update on H&K...I lost track some time back.

Well you bring up very pertinent points on 5.56mm and the INSAS...and the whole damn drama. Man the SA80 costs in excess of £1500?!! :shock: ... thats after the H&K (A2) upgrade right? Good heavens!! Thats pretty expensive! The saving grace is at least the people concerned are using their heads and not averse to spending good money to ensure a good rifle reaches the soldier in the end...upgrades and all.

Look at the farce here- The great poster show is wallowing in stinginess in resources both financial and mental. Ultimately its all just an expensive exercise in National Prestige.

Pah!!



Grumpy
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:43 am
Location: UK

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby Grumpy » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:52 pm

CC, I was unaware of the H&K sale myself until a few months ago.

There is a superb Guardian article on the SA80 debacle written back in 2002. It ought to be essential reading for anyone interested in the INSAS saga because of the many parallels - economically, politically, militarily and in manufacture. Note that whilst the SA80 was patently rubbish Army Generals were insisting that they loved the gun - does that remind you of anything ?
As an update to the article I can say that one of my sources, a serving British Army officer not long returned from Afghanistan, has said that the SA80A2 proved very reliable in combat conditions, as has the current Radway Green magazine. Thank goodness for that !
Note also that the whole point of the SA80 was that it should be simple and cheap to manufacture. Har bloody har.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 13,00.html



ngrewal
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 7:28 pm
Location: US

Postby ngrewal » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:08 am

cc and Grumpy

Very well put but issues listed are serious. God knows what would it take to sort INSAS out. Maybe Indians can seek assistance from IDF(Israel), Indians have purchased Tavor their latest gun. As pointed out SA 80 design improved only after belated but wise and humble decision to seek H and K's design assistance. ( BTW Grumps looks like French gun had less teething problems ;>).
The key operatives words are wise and humble neither of which are found in OFB or DRDO lexicon. What really upsets me is the attitude shown towards jawans or soldiers well being.
In addition to Guns, OFB also manufacturers world class shoes, webbings etc for our soldiers.

R

Jonah, cc and Grumpy have provided very clinical analysis on pros (such as) and cons for INSAS. I have never met any so called DRDO expert and if there is any testing report available, it would be interesting to read. Until then I trust board experts over anything heresay published by Desi Dork media (DDM). Blind chauvism cannot substitute for facts or under powered ammo.
For comparison try the jackets and shoes made by OFB for soldiers. I have personally bought and send shoes and jackets for my friends in IA, including camo material for uniform.



cottage cheese
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Shillong-Dimapur

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby cottage cheese » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:37 am

Grumpy\";p=\"30851 wrote:CC, I was unaware of the H&K sale myself until a few months ago.

There is a superb Guardian article on the SA80 debacle written back in 2002. It ought to be essential reading for anyone interested in the INSAS saga because of the many parallels - economically, politically, militarily and in manufacture. Note that whilst the SA80 was patently rubbish Army Generals were insisting that they loved the gun - does that remind you of anything ?
As an update to the article I can say that one of my sources, a serving British Army officer not long returned from Afghanistan, has said that the SA80A2 proved very reliable in combat conditions, as has the current Radway Green magazine. Thank goodness for that !
Note also that the whole point of the SA80 was that it should be simple and cheap to manufacture. Har bloody har.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 13,00.html


Grumps,

The article is superb. Thank you. - really appreciate it.

All one needs to do is replace the names, institutions and places into Indian ones and there- presto! - you have the INSAS saga!

Here it looks pretty much like were going to have the saga continue a while longer... because the government and its appendages are absolutely unaccountable.

Looks likely we'll be importing top up batches of AKs for a while as well... while we wait for the INSAS to outgrow its puberty.

Regards,
CC



cottage cheese
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Shillong-Dimapur

Postby cottage cheese » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:15 am

ngrewal\";p=\"30855 wrote:cc and Grumpy

Very well put but issues listed are serious. God knows what would it take to sort INSAS out. Maybe Indians can seek assistance from IDF(Israel), Indians have purchased Tavor their latest gun. As pointed out SA 80 design improved only after belated but wise and humble decision to seek H and K's design assistance. ( BTW Grumps looks like French gun had less teething problems ;>).
The key operatives words are wise and humble neither of which are found in OFB or DRDO lexicon. What really upsets me is the attitude shown towards jawans or soldiers well being.
In addition to Guns, OFB also manufacturers world class shoes, webbings etc for our soldiers.



Hi ngrewal,
Nice of you to drop in! :)

About the Tavor, while the SF seems to be bent on having it...I'd heard some talk of the possibility of the Tavor or something evolved from it, being put into production as a future service rifle...I must admit it's only hearsay and have no idea what murky dealings go on beneath the surface. I regard the Tavor with a bit of unease because it's being peddled(Like the SA80) before it has fully matured or truly proven...regardless of whether it's Israeli technology or no. Lets hope better minds prevail.

Lawman had posted a link to Zittara.

I have no idea what kind of marriage we have with the Israeli manufacturers, but the lack of transparency is hardly surprising. The IOFB seems to be peddling a lot of Israeli hardware, I remember seeing a NEGEV LMG on display by the IOFB in an Expo. The Zittara is a variant of the Tavor. As to whether we are manufacturing it from a turn-key facility imported from Israel or whether we are simply a marketing front, I have no idea. Perhaps others here are privy to better info. I'd definitely like to know.

Jonah, cc and Grumpy have provided very clinical analysis on pros (such as) and cons for INSAS. I have never met any so called DRDO expert and if there is any testing report available, it would be interesting to read. Until then I trust board experts over anything heresay published by Desi Dork media (DDM). Blind chauvism cannot substitute for facts or under powered ammo.
For comparison try the jackets and shoes made by OFB for soldiers. I have personally bought and send shoes and jackets for my friends in IA, including camo material for uniform.


Well testing reports will more often than not, look rosy.... thats how they always are :)
yaar...I'd prefer not to be tagged an 'expert'... it sounds so establishment :mrgreen:
I just take the extra trouble to know some things under the surface :mrgreen:
Plus my dislike for the way the establishment runs things and its attitude annoys me a great deal... this is my oxygen :)

You're absolutely right about the rest of the world-class marvels that the IOFB peddles. Down to the shoddy clothing and gear.

Last week I lost a friend (A cop) to militant bullets in an operation. He was wearing the Indian made so called 'bullet -proof" jacket... the 9.5 kilo one...details were discussed in another threadthread. The bullet went through the huge unprotected flanks. If I remember right, this is the third fatality in the state police as a result of the jacket's poor design. The families ought to sue.



Grumpy
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:43 am
Location: UK

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby Grumpy » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:23 am

Glad you appreciated the article CC - I consider it to be one of the best critical pieces of journalism written about a specific military weapon in years.....and still relevent five years later.
Many of the parallels with the INSAS are striking aren`t they ?

Transparency as regards the Israelis and military sales ? Some hope ! Remember their collusion with the apartheid government in South Africa ?



penpusher

Re: A Civilians Review of the INSAS

Postby penpusher » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:57 pm

Rudranath,

1.INSAS is a world class product.Says who? IOFB that manufactures it.Has it ever been evaluated against another wepoan system?NO.So how come this claim?

2.The Standing Committee on Defence is made to believe that the INSAS is infact manytimes cheaper than rifles sold elsewhere with the same 'features'.Without any knowledge of firearms,the members of the Committee of course readily agree and "Hey,it's cheap too.Pass me the samosa please."

3.The DG Quality Assurance,who, as his name implies ,is to ensure that the products manufactured are upto the mark,is under the IOFB.The IOFB is under the MOD that also controlls the Army.There have been numerous reports of arm twisting by the MOD,to ensure that the defence forces accept products manufactured by the IOFB and other PSU's even if they are sub-standard.The Indian MBT Arjun is one such example.Yesterday,there were reports of a senior Airforce officer protesting that the BEL products that they were being forced to buy were not up to the mark.

4.There is nothing Indian about the INSAS but for the name.It is a hotch potch of ideas borrowed from different rifles(AK 47,G3,FN FAL).

5.It is alright to be proud of your country but pride will get you nowhere againts a better armed foe.

Why can't we just manufacture a well proven, battle tested rifle under license in India? I don't hear the Pakistani Army protesting about their licensed copies of H&K rifles, sub - machineguns , machineguns.Nor do the Chinese have any problem with their copies of the AK rifles.




Return to “Rifles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests