What's new

Defective INSAS, Army wants new AK-47s

Abingdonboy

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
29,597
Reaction score
46
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
NAGPUR: The indigenous 5.56x45mm Insas (Indian National Small Arms System) rifle has been the standard assault weapon for the Indian Army since the late 1990s. However, the jawans using it in counter-insurgency operations find it ineffective.

As part of the new Army doctrine, the gun is meant to incapacitate the enemy, rather than kill. Insas has a smaller calibre, which means it has less power. This is because — and it's the official view — injuring an enemy can lead to enemy soldiers getting engaged in tending the wounded, thus yielding a tactical battlefield advantage.

The technocrats who interacted with soldiers in the forward areas were told that this theory does not work with terrorists who, apart from attacking in small numbers, are never bothered about evacuating their injured. Hence, the soldiers say, they want to shoot to kill, rather than maim.

The soldiers also spoke about practical difficulties in using Insas. It's accurate but not as rugged as the AK-47 used by terrorists, they say. Also, its sling often snaps while firing, making it fall during manoeuvres. The sling also obstructs the rifle's sight. But most of all, the size of the sling never took into account the bullet proof jacket worn by jawans. As a result, it falls short and is uncomfortable to hold. This hampers quick reaction. Insas also does not have a rapid fire feature; it shoots only three rounds in a single burst.

''The barrel overheats with continuous firing. The magazine cracks even on falling, which is common during action. Oil spillage while firing is also major trouble,'' said a source quoting soldiers. ''Zeroing (adjusting the sight for aim) has to be done each time the rifle is opened to clean or for any other reason. Lack of proper zeroing hampers the working of night vision device,'' said the same source.

The total additional weight — around 40 kg with bulletproof jacket and signalling equipment — that a soldier carries is also a matter of concern, as is the colour of the rifle: they want it in brown which offers better camouflaging. On the positive side, Insas's transparent magazine helps soldiers keep a count of bullets.

Former director general of infantry, Lt General Shanker Prasad, said Insas is antiquated and the Infantry needs a modern rifle. The Army has repeatedly asked for new assault weapons, but nothing has moved. It's learnt that forces are now expecting new indigenously developed AK-47 rifle said to be an improvement on the original.

Saddled with Insas, Army wants new AK-47s - The Times of India

1.Does anyone know what yhe IA are going to do about these issues?
2. when could we see foreign rifles in use? And which ones would be up for the tender?
3.What is the cost of an individual rifle as US buys M-4 at $600 USD each?
4.What is wrong with the INSAS Excalibur, why has no unit in Indian armed forces inducted?
5. Why do the Indian armed forces not use any type of standard sights such as red dot sights (apart from on Tavors where it is standard) on INSAS and AK IA/IN/IAF use basic,standard Iron sights.

any help in answering above Q's would be much appreciated.
 
Agreed. The INSAS to sum it up succinctly in one word - sucks.

Granted that it is a more accurate weapons however that is not what
particularly reassures us not when we lack faith in its ability to take down the target. Reliability/Durability and Lethality are in my opinion the primary features around which a weapons system must be developed and the INSAS fails terrifically to do that.

Foreign rifles are being presently used however they are restricted to elite units so far. For instances over 3,000 Zittaras have been procured for special forces units. AK's are available for combat ops but thanks to our praised bureaucracy induction of the INSAS is been seen as a vital step in promoting India's indigenous defence industries. We're aiming for ICBM's and equipment of the sort and we're yet to be capable of producing a robust, popular and effective assault rifle. Disheartening as it is the induction of the INSAS's was an essential step for only with failures would it be possible for us to build more successful variants.

The multi caliber individual weapons system being developed under F-INSAS which will include a 5.56 mm, a 7.62 mm and a new 6.8 mm under-development for the first time in India provided with UBGL features as well shall hopefully usher in a far more reliable and effective weapons system than the present one which has greatly degraded the infantry's fighting potential in comparison to what it could easily have been.
 
This is a 2009 article, why are we discussin it now??

Anyways, INSAS has been modernised and army is using it.
 
Are they getting anything right themselves or just buying off the shelf?
 
Yeah all the defects were resolved and it performed extremely well which i read in a news paper some time back
 
Agreed. The INSAS to sum it up succinctly in one word - sucks.

never expected these words coming from an indian member.

As i remember it was being called as the most lethal and deadliest weapon when compared to Pakistan's Ak-47s & G3s.

Anyway, this news is old (sept,2009), any updates on this one??
 
Age old article, discussed many times.

As part of the new Army doctrine, the gun is meant to incapacitate the enemy, rather than kill. Insas has a smaller calibre, which means it has less power. This is because — and it's the official view — injuring an enemy can lead to enemy soldiers getting engaged in tending the wounded, thus yielding a tactical battlefield advantage. [/url]
So basically problem is with the doctrine, the gun were designed according to the doctrine.
 
^^^ Doctrines are focused more on conditions where a country expects an all out war with its rivals(Pakistan & China in India's case), since they are meant to deal with the worst case scenarios.

Where the main focus is to kill and defeat the enemy's invading or defending forces at the time of action. In which case the standard military weapon is supposed to have sufficient range, accuracy, well effectiveness within its range and easy mobility.

And this logic of taking hostage for intel and leads holds good in case of current insurgency. If the goal is to take hostages then shooting enemy at legs and arms would do the job without the need of reducing power in the gun, and if in case the guns are made to compromise than this will make weapon useless in most of the battlefields.

I think there would be some other reason behind it.
 
^^^ Doctrines are focused more on conditions where a country expects an all out war with its rivals(Pakistan & China in India's case), since they are meant to deal with the worst case scenarios.

Where the main focus is to kill and defeat the enemy's invading or defending forces at the time of action. In which case the standard military weapon is supposed to have sufficient range, accuracy, well effectiveness within its range and easy mobility.

And this logic of taking hostage for intel and leads holds good in case of current insurgency. If the goal is to take hostages then shooting enemy at legs and arms would do the job without the need of reducing power in the gun, and if in case the guns are made to compromise than this will make weapon useless in most of the battlefields.

I think there would be some other reason behind it.

The logic is, if a soldier is wounded, some one would come to help him. Thus atleast two enemies not firing at you. While if he is killed, no body is attending him, everyone is firing at you. Taking hostage is not considered here.

But this logic applies only to professional forces, not to terrorist (only they get to face insas!). Terrorist don't stop to look after their injured comrades. This was not taken into consideration, and now army men are complaining about it.
 
That is incorrect kingdurgaking, nothing of the sort has been done, we 'largely' continue to use the same variant.

Well materialistic I'm not gonna argue just for the sake of arguing and therefore I'm not gonna defend the INSAS simply because it's Indian.
 
any help in answering above Q's would be much appreciated.

What is the problem? why are you opening a thread on a article ie more than one year old??? already there is a thread on it.

INSAS is an excellent rifle and more than one million are in use. Earlier they had no major problem but now IA wants more modern rifle and the INSAS also need to be replaced in near future.

IA will get such multi-caliber weapon soon...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
hmm the debate on the 5.56 ammo has been long running... the aim to maim the enemy was the basis for the black rifle`s aka m-16`s caliber....

but doesn't india make generic clones of the ak-47??
 
From what i know form talking to a couple of infantry officer, the INSAS is a good gun it does its job pretty well. There are no concerns with the rifle as the article seems to suggest. The Army is satisfied with its performance and is not unduly worried.

Secondly for anti-terrorist operations the Army uses the Ak-47 due to its advantage in close combat, the INSAS is used by troops manning the cordon and the AK and other specialized weapons by the assault teams, whose job is to neutralize the terrorists. The Rastriya Rifles primarily use the AK for their operations.

The INSAS was primarily designed with conventional warfare in mind and it is pretty good in that role. The army already had a potent weapon in the form of the AK for ant-terror operations and now they are also using other specialized small arms for that purpose. This is not to say that the INSAS is bad for anti-terror operations, just that the AK foots the bill better in that role.
 

Back
Top Bottom