# DRDO's New Multi-caliber weapon system to replace INSAS



## Chola warrior

DRDO is set to unveil the multi-caliber individual weapon system (MCIWS) being develped by the Armaments Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune, which will allow operators to alternatively fire 7.62mm, 5.56mm and 6.8 mm rounds by changing the barrel group, breech block & magazine. Provision has also been made to mount an indigenous 40 mm Under Barrel grenade Launcher (UBGL) (pictured above) capable of firing programmable air-burst rounds. CCD camera day sight and thermal imaging night sight can also be mounted on its picatinny rail system to engage targets in day & night conditions. The weapon body is machined with Aluminium alloy and a metal insert based 30 Round engineering plastic magazine and adjustable butt are also featured. Ambidextrous features for cocking, lever change and magazine change have also been incorporated.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Water Car Engineer

*DRDO Multi Caliber Rifle Prototype (7.62mm, 5.56mm, and 6.8mm)*

Reactions: Like Like:
15


----------



## drunken-monke

Yeh huyee na bat...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chola warrior

Water Car Engineer said:


> *DRDO Multi Caliber Rifle Prototype (7.62mm, 5.56mm, and 6.8mm)*


This is sexy now IA has no way to deny this beauty..It must have been performed well in trials. That's why they are displaying it now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Secularpakistani

cool but it looks like a close copy of AK-12.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

Secularpakistani said:


> cool but it looks like a close copy of AK-12.


does it now, with a machined receiver, it looks closer to the ar platform, with SCAR ergonomics and AK styled gas tube. For 5.56 caliber it retains Insas's barrel

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chola warrior

Secularpakistani said:


> cool but it looks like a close copy of AK-12.











Only butt, P-trail and hand grips are kinda similar. Otherwise the whole system seems different starting from barrell

MCIWS also seems to be short piston operated

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Secularpakistani

Chola warrior said:


> Only butt, P-trail and hand grips are kinda similar. Otherwise the whole system seems different starting from barrell
> 
> MCIWS also seems to be short piston operated


Also i have seen the concept of multi caliber so far only in AK-12.
Anyway congrats those insas rifles are too old and antique looking.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Secularpakistani said:


> Also i have seen the concept of multi caliber so far only in AK-12.
> Anyway congrats those insas rifles are too old and antique looking.



AK 12 isnt multi caliber capable as far as I know. There are like 5-7 rifles and growing with that feature.


----------



## Secularpakistani

Water Car Engineer said:


> AK 12 isnt multi caliber capable as far as I know. There are like 5-7 rifles and growing with that feature.


Read about it AK-12 is a multi caliber assault rifle
AK-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And sorry i can,t access youtube.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Secularpakistani said:


> Read about it AK-12 is a multi caliber assault rifle
> AK-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> And sorry i can,t access youtube.





Thanks for the correction.



Secularpakistani said:


> And sorry i can,t access youtube.



It's a amateur video of it -

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secularpakistani

Water Car Engineer said:


> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a amateur video of it -


Also can you tell me the unit price of your new rifle ? May be i can get some through black market in our north west  I am shooting and weapon enthusiast and have plenty of guns in my locker.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Secularpakistani said:


> Also can you tell me the unit price of your new rifle ? May be i can get some through black market in our north west  I am shooting and weapon enthusiast and have plenty of guns in my locker.



This thing is a prototype, and the gun really isn't fully realized yet. Modifications, etc will occur for sure. So it's hard to gauge pricing now.

And I doubt Indian weapons will get their way all the way there.


----------



## Chola warrior

Secularpakistani said:


> Also can you tell me the unit price of your new rifle ? May be i can get some through black market in our north west  I am shooting and weapon enthusiast and have plenty of guns in my locker.



Probably in the range of other foreign rifles. Since IA also considering other rifles such as ARX 160, galil ACE, CZ bren, seems they are willing to spend pretty amount on individual system. Its a part of F-INSAS.

INSAS had restrictions of product cost. That's why DRDO didn't incorporate some features in it.


----------



## Water Car Engineer



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rahul1563

By looking it is very good.......Drdo now a days is coming up with the products which looks very good like Arjun MK2, MCIWS rifles, DRDO Rudra...........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HariPrasad

Secularpakistani said:


> Also can you tell me the unit price of your new rifle ? May be i can get some through black market in our north west  I am shooting and weapon enthusiast and have plenty of guns in my locker.




Plenty of guns cost a lot. You seems to be a very rich person.


----------



## Secularpakistani

HariPrasad said:


> Plenty of guns cost a lot. You seems to be a very rich person.


Having plenty of guns in pakistan is not a big deal my friend ))

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Water Car Engineer



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Water Car Engineer



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUz

Seems ok..lets see how it performs.

When will Pakistan come up with its own rifle?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

AUz said:


> Seems ok..lets see how it performs.
> 
> When will Pakistan come up with its own rifle?


Well INSAS was also their own but it didn't worked the way they wanted that to work so why we should waste money on start completely new project when we have options in the world and also we have pretty much upgraded both AK-47 and also HK G-3 according to our needs


----------



## kaykay

Zarvan said:


> Well INSAS was also their own but it didn't worked the way they wanted that to work so why we should waste money on start completely new project when we have options in the world and also we have pretty much upgraded both AK-47 and also HK G-3 according to our needs


Always denying something won't help much. INSAS worked very well specially later batches(rectified ones) but we want a Rifle which can use all bullets by just changing its caliber and granade too. These multi-caliber guns will give flexibility that no single caliber gun can give. AuZ is not wrong for wishing such multi-caliber Indigenous gun for PA.


----------



## A1Kaid

Does it mention what kind of barrel does it have? Rifling? Material?


----------



## Water Car Engineer

*DRDO Holo Sight*

~14,000 ordered

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The_Sidewinder

@Water Car Engineer
any new updates mate on MCIWS mate????


----------



## rockstarIN

Isnt 4 kg weight with 30 round magazines a drawback?


----------



## Water Car Engineer

The_Sidewinder said:


> @Water Car Engineer
> any new updates mate on MCIWS mate????



None, but several prototypes are being tested to the brink pretty much.


----------



## The_Sidewinder

Water Car Engineer said:


> None, but several prototypes are being tested to the brink pretty much.



I hope this weapon gets inducted under finsas sooner than later.


----------



## IND151

Zarvan said:


> Well INSAS was also their own but it didn't worked the way they wanted that to work so why we should waste money on start completely new project when we have options in the world and also we have pretty much upgraded both AK-47 and also HK G-3 according to our needs



Then why China develops its own assault rifles? They have huge pocket, they can buy AKs from Russians?

Having capacity to produce such things open new avenues and reduces your vulnerability to sanctions.


----------



## Zarvan

IND151 said:


> Then why China develops its own assault rifles? They have huge pocket, they can buy AKs from Russians?
> 
> Having capacity to produce such things open new avenues and reduces your vulnerability to sanctions.


Well because China is developing Good weapons they succeeded in doing so you failed only after few years you realized that INSAS didn't suit you than you also have miserable experience with your own Fighter Jet and not to mention Tank


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Zarvan said:


> Well because China is developing Good weapons they succeeded in doing so you failed only after few years you realized that INSAS didn't suit you than you also have miserable experience with your own Fighter Jet and not to mention Tank




What are you talking about, the INSASs problems were pretty much corrected. And pretty much every small arm had initial quirks.

And initially China didnt product world beating weapons at all. Still doesnt produce weapons on par with the US or other NATO members. But with each try, the next attempt is better.

BTW, India also had a miserable experience at first with it's ballistic missile program, but look where it's at now. It's a regular success and the developmental cycle is much shorter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HariPrasad

Water Car Engineer said:


> What are you talking about, the INSASs problems were pretty much corrected. And pretty much every small arm had initial quirks.
> 
> And initially China didnt product world beating weapons at all. Still doesnt produce weapons on par with the US or other NATO members. But with each try, the next attempt is better.
> 
> BTW, India also had a miserable experience at first with it's ballistic missile program, but look where it's at now. It's a regular success and the developmental cycle is much shorter.




Do not answer him. He is not here for serious debate.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DingDong

Zarvan said:


> Well because China is developing Good weapons they succeeded in doing so you failed only after few years you realized that INSAS didn't suit you than you also have miserable experience with your own Fighter Jet and not to mention Tank



INSAS took thousands of Pakistani lives during 1999 war. Our fighter jets and tanks have served us well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mike_Brando

Zarvan said:


> Well because China is developing Good weapons they succeeded in doing so you failed only after few years you realized that INSAS didn't suit you than you also have miserable experience with your own Fighter Jet and not to mention Tank


You do know that INSAS is one of the most successfull A.R. in the late 20th century with over 1.5 millions of it have been manufactured till date and our entire Armed Forces(except the Rashtriya Rifles) are equipped with this rifle,plus it's also the standard A.R. for the Central Armed Police Forces.Heck nowadays even the state police forces are getting INSAS in large nos.So tell me,how can a rifle be called a failure when more than 1.5 millions of it has already been manufactured and distributed among the Indian security forces!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Mike_Brando said:


> You do know that INSAS is one of the most successfull A.R. in the late 20th century with over 1.5 millions of it have been manufactured till date and our entire Armed Forces(except the Rashtriya Rifles) are equipped with this rifle,plus it's also the standard A.R. for the Central Armed Police Forces.Heck nowadays even the state police forces are getting INSAS in large nos.So tell me,how can a rifle be called a failure when more than 1.5 millions of it has already been manufactured and distributed among the Indian security forces!!


Because within 15 years you are looking to change it and you are now testing 5 different guns to select one for your force


----------



## kaykay

Zarvan said:


> Because within 15 years you are looking to change it and you are now testing 5 different guns to select one for your force


Well so does it means AKs are failure too? Every country modernise its defence force with time. We are no exception. New rifles will be of multi caliber which INSAS and AKs lack.


----------



## Zarvan

kaykay said:


> Well so does it means AKs are failure too? Every country modernise its defence force with time. We are no exception. New rifles will be of multi caliber which INSAS and AKs lack.


AKs are still in use every AK is in used for 40 years and now its new Models are coming up you in 15 years realized that INSAS is not good for you Indians learn to accept failures


----------



## danger007

Zarvan said:


> AKs are still in use every AK is in used for 40 years and now its new Models are coming up you in 15 years realized that INSAS is not good for you Indians learn to accept failures


Hmm then why you guys upgrading f 16... INSAS is basic model..


----------



## kaykay

Zarvan said:


> AKs are still in use every AK is in used for 40 years and now its new Models are coming up you in 15 years realized that INSAS is not good for you Indians learn to accept failures


Well It will be good if you Pakistanis will learn to comprehend something first before preaching someone else.
India is gonna replace both AKs and INSAS because they both have their limitations. AKs are with COINs forces while INSAS is a standard rifle for infantry. Multi caliber guns will solve this problem of using 2 types of guns for different roles as just by changing calibers, one can use it in different roles.
And also being in service with 40 countries have nothing to do with modernisation. Those who can't afford to modernise its army will have no option but to use basic AKs as they are cheapest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hkdas

Zarvan said:


> AKs are still in use every AK is in used for 40 years and now its new Models are coming up you in 15 years realized that INSAS is not good for you Indians learn to accept failures



insas is much better than G3 used by pakistan army... do you know your G3 will get jammed at temperature of 5 degree!! meanwhile INSAS is used in siachen with much successfully. they why did PA still use G3??..... indian army's requirements are much higher that the DRDO can't make such a weapon in their 1st time.. so they developed Multi Caliber Individual Weapon System (MCIWS) with IA's current requirements... apart from that OFB is improving INSAS.... the INSAS 1B1 and 1B2 are the latest model with improvements... indian army's current requirement is a AR with multi caliber rifle that is why DRDO develop MCIWS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

hkdas said:


> insas is much better than G3 used by pakistan army... do you know your G3 will get jammed at temperature of 5 degree!! meanwhile INSAS is used in siachen with much successfully. they why did PA still use G3??..... indian army's requirements are much higher that the DRDO can't make such a weapon in their 1st time.. so they developed Multi Caliber Individual Weapon System (MCIWS) with IA's current requirements... apart from that OFB is improving INSAS.... the INSAS 1B1 and 1B2 are the latest model with improvements... indian army's current requirement is a AR with multi caliber rifle that is why DRDO develop MCIWS.


We are still using G 3 because we are shot off money other wise we would change this Gun


----------



## Zarvan

kaykay said:


> Well It will be good if you Pakistanis will learn to comprehend something first before preaching someone else.
> India is gonna replace both AKs and INSAS because they both have their limitations. AKs are with COINs forces while INSAS is a standard rifle for infantry. Multi caliber guns will solve this problem of using 2 types of guns for different roles as just by changing calibers, one can use it in different roles.
> And also being in service with 40 countries have nothing to do with modernisation. Those who can't afford to modernise its army will have no option but to use basic AKs as they are cheapest.


Many countries who can afford still use AK


----------



## A1Kaid

DingDong said:


> INSAS took thousands of Pakistani lives during 1999 war. Our fighter jets and tanks have served us well.





> INSAS took thousands of Pakistani lives during 1999 war



Fool there weren't even thousands of Pakistanis present in Kargil. G3 has taken thousands of Indian lives as well over the years.


----------



## karan.1970

A1Kaid said:


> Fool there weren't even thousands of Pakistanis present in Kargil. G3 has taken thousands of Indian lives as well over the years.


By the admission of your Prime Minister (present and at the time of Kargil), close to four thousand Pakistani infiltrators were neutralized in Kargil War. But you are right. Most of them were blown to bits by the Bofors or Mirage attacks and not INSAS

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## GORKHALI

A1Kaid said:


> Fool there weren't even thousands of Pakistanis present in Kargil. G3 has taken thousands of Indian lives as well over the years.



Actually to be precise its more than 4000 soldiers according to your PM.
The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A1Kaid

karan.1970 said:


> By the admission of your Prime Minister (present and at the time of Kargil), close to four thousand Pakistani infiltrators were neutralized in Kargil War. But you are right. Most of them were blown to bits by the Bofors or Mirage attacks and not INSAS




Most of Kargil high points are still under Pakistani control to this today. Indians were slaughtered in the hundreds, you Indians have lied about your battle records in Kargil per se your own military commanders in Kargil. Using inflated enemy casualty numbers, false encounters, etc.


----------



## A1Kaid

GORKHALI said:


> Actually to be precise its more than 4000 soldiers according to your PM.
> The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif



Read the article and try to understand his motive behind in saying this, it certainly isn't the truth.



> In recent times, *Mr. Sharif has been harping on Kargil as an example of failure of the military leadership of Gen. Musharraf. *
> 
> Mr. Sharif, in exile in Saudi Arabia under a pact with the Musharraf regime, in a first ever on record interview some weeks back had threatened to "reveal all" about the "Kargil misadventure".



The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif



> *Pak lost 2,700 men in Kargil war: Sharif*


Pak lost 2,700 men in Kargil war: Sharif - The Times of India

Here Nawaz Sharif said the casualty was 2,700 for PA, he has been totally inconsistent about the data. It's really about to make Gen. Musharraf look bad for the operation. I can assure you if Pakistan were to even lose nearly 4k soldiers in Kargil it wouldn't have been a skirmish no longer. Kargil operation was mix of Kashmiri and Pakistani troops mostly Kashmiri according to Gen. Musharraf in his memoir Line of Fire.

But let's look at two sources here:

If I remember correctly Gen. Musharraf put the number at est. 270, US State Department provided an independent estimate and put the Pakistani it at est. 700. Only person claiming 4k casualty is Mr. Nawaz Sharif and that is purely for political reasons.


According to Wiki:


> Pakistan confirmed that 453 soldiers were killed. The US Department of State had made an early, partial estimate of close to 700 fatalities.



Kargil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But let's focus on Indian casualties in Kargil.



> *‘Pakistan lost 270 soldiers, India 1600 troopers’*
> Referring to Pakistani casualties during the Kargil war,* Musharraf said that Pakistan lost only 270 men against India’s 1,600 soldiers*.


Kargil operation was big success, Pakistan lost because of Sharif: Musharraf



> A feature given on the PIB web site on "Operation Vijay" clearly says that 527 brave soldiers and airmen laid down their lives during the Kargil war.


*Disclosing Kargil casualties would affect morale of troops: CIC*


If you look at either sources and compare the numbers on most accounts Pakistan suffered less casualties than India. According to Gen. Musharraf who is one of the leading public authority on Kargil war and the man who would actually have better figures and estimates Pakistan lost est. 270 soldiers and India 1,600 troops. Besides, it would have been probably impossible for Pakistan to even send 4,000 soldiers into Kargil without earlier detection, a much smaller and leaner force was sent to carry out the successful operation.Kargil is mostly controlled by Pakistan to this day.


----------



## Rahul1563

Ya son ...you know better


----------



## karan.1970

A1Kaid said:


> Most of Kargil high points are still under Pakistani control to this today. Indians were slaughtered in the hundreds, you Indians have lied about your battle records in Kargil per se your own military commanders in Kargil. Using inflated enemy casualty numbers, false encounters, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Zabaniyah

Looks good, but seems a little heavy.


----------



## ni8mare

Loki said:


> Looks good, but seems a little heavy.


without magazine <3.3 kg
with magazine <4 kg
seem alright


----------



## IND151

A1Kaid said:


> Most of Kargil high points are still under Pakistani control to this today. Indians were slaughtered in the hundreds, you Indians have lied about your battle records in Kargil per se your own military commanders in Kargil. Using inflated enemy casualty numbers, false encounters, etc.



Which ones, 'Sire'?


----------



## Omega007

CallofDuty2 said:


> oh yeah you dont have any answers to the question.


What was your question again??Cause I do not see anything in interrogative terms in that post I relied to!!So again,go back and finish your elementary school before coming here and defecating everywhere with your filthy mouth.


CallofDuty2 said:


> and m cod 2 not that old cod.


Grow some ballz,will ya,little piece of chicken shit??!!You say you are not the same guy,yet you forgot to change your writing style,or the total lack of it.........it's a dead give away you know,piece of crap.

oh... @waz ,@Oscar please help @Omega007 .
Stop laughing you piece of crap.It's you who needs the help chicken shit,that's why I called the 'docs',to fix your *** up,you moron.



CallofDuty2 said:


> and i will take caution.i have my rights in PDF.


Sorry,but brain dead imbeciles of your caliber do not have any rights.


CallofDuty2 said:


> as long as i not go against the rules, no ban.sorry man.


Yeah yeah,just like the first time,right.........................you little chihuahua??


----------



## Not So Good

Omega007 said:


> Callofbooty returns!!Along with his usual bullshit of course. @waz , @Oscar please take care of this little thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omega007

CallofDuty2 said:


> calm down brother, my q is why not advanced weapons.


And how do you know the MCIWS is not advanced??Have you fired it or talked with the developers??Do you know about its operation mechanisms??Do you have some insider information that we mortals are not privy to,sire??If it is so,then stop beating around the bush and come clean with your findings.Or else,just keep shut,watch and learn.
And yeah,one more thing - you didn't ask any question.You stated your opinion.You know what's the shit with opinions??It's like asshole,everyone and his mother has got one,doesn't mean we have entertain each and every one of those.But right now,I'm finding you to be quite entertaining.So carry on,entertain me some more.............SLAVE!!  




CallofDuty2 said:


> grow some ballz that means you have ten balls.


As I said before and I say it again,you lack even the basic most,elementary level education!!Go get a proper schooling first,or you could ask your mum,that will work too I guess.  


CallofDuty2 said:


> and you know me well


Not well but enough.


CallofDuty2 said:


> i have given a *very good* impact on u all.


Not very good,rather a stupid impression.



CallofDuty2 said:


> F u man, smell some a$$.


Oh,so you want me to say that when you are pissed,as you are right now (judging by this swearing),you smell *** to vent your steam??!!Wow!!Are you gay??


----------



## Arsalan

Good, so INSAS was not deemed suitable for Indian Army or is it that this new super gun is super advanced so that it will replace the older ones? Have not read much about this new weapon system but whatever i have read about it, it sure looks good. 

ALSO, please mind you language while posting in the threads, swearing and foul language wont get you anywhere, specially @Omega007 @CallofDuty2 . If you have any differences, better to settle them in a civilized manner. You can present some facts/links to support your argument and that will be much better then calling names.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Not So Good

Arsalan said:


> Good, so INSAS was not deemed suitable for Indian Army or is it that this new super gun is super advanced so that it will replace the older ones? Have not read much about this new weapon system but whatever i have read about it, it sure looks good.
> 
> ALSO, please mind you language while posting in the threads, swearing and foul language wont get you anywhere, specially @Omega007 @CallofDuty2 . If you have any differences, better to settle them in a civilized manner. You can present some facts/links to support your argument and that will be much better then calling names.


PA is planning to replace g3s with new gun that doesn't mean g3 was UNSUITABLE for PA

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Omega007

Arsalan said:


> Good, so INSAS was not deemed suitable for Indian Army or is it that this new super gun is super advanced so that it will replace the older ones? Have not read much about this new weapon system but whatever i have read about it, it sure looks good.


Nothing super advanced,just closer to contemporary designs compared to INSAS 1B1,which was designed way back in the mid 80s and has long been due for replacement.But then again,firearms design hasn't really changed that much if you look at it;that except the use of better looking outer furniture,there hasn't really been any radical design shift.



Arsalan said:


> ALSO, please mind you language while posting in the threads, swearing and foul language wont get you anywhere, specially @Omega007 @CallofDuty2 . If you have any differences, better to settle them in a civilized manner.


OK,will do.


Arsalan said:


> You can present some facts/links to support your argument and that will be much better then calling names.


Don't you think it's COD who needs to come up with the facts since he's the one making the claims and therefore,the burden of proof lies on him??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

Omega007 said:


> Nothing super advanced,just closer to contemporary designs compared to INSAS 1B1,which was designed way back in the mid 80s and has long been due for replacement.But then again,firearms design hasn't really changed that much if you look at it;that except the use of better looking outer furniture,there hasn't really been any radical design shift.


But these will be much more advanced compared to INSAS right?
and what about the INSAS, were there any kind of problems with that or it is a routine change/upgrade?




> OK,will do.


Great, thanks!



> Don't you think it's COD who needs to come up with the facts since he's the one making the claims and therefore,the burden of proof lies on him??


Well if we were in a court room, may be yes. However assuming we are all here to learn, references/links to prove ones point will help if they come from both sides. We will get a lot to learn then don't you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rockstarIN

Arsalan said:


> But these will be much more advanced compared to INSAS right?
> and what about the INSAS, were there any kind of problems with that or it is a routine change/upgrade?



In terms with the changing environment (read NATO Afgan campaign) IA felt the need of a weapon which can fire 5.56 and 7.72. Just think that PA was using some 5.56 rifle instead of G3 and went to your recent offensive against militants? 5.56 suits for a conventional war fare, not COIN. 

INSAS has done its part, it was coint Rs-8 to 10k per piece...cost effective and rectified all its probelms on a latter stage.


----------



## Arsalan

Not So Good said:


> PA is planning to replace g3s with new gun that doesn't mean g3 was UNSUITABLE for PA



G-3 was manufactured back in 1950, YES, some 65 years ago. The version we use are much more modern and advanced but even they are not as recently acquired/designed as the INSAS that was first manufactured only some 15 years ago!!

How can you ignore the 50 years difference?

The main assault rifle are not something that are meant to be replaced every 15 years! No one dies so unless there is some problem. 
They are to be produced in huge numbers, hundreds and thousands of guns and are meant to equip the army for much longer time periods. That is why i asked this question that was there a problem with INSAS that they are thinking/going to replace the entire stocks with a new gun only after some 15 years of its introduction?



rockstarIN said:


> In terms with the changing environment (read NATO Afgan campaign) IA felt the need of a weapon which can fire 5.56 and 7.72. Just think that PA was using some 5.56 rifle instead of G3 and went to your recent offensive against militants? 5.56 suits for a conventional war fare, not COIN.
> 
> INSAS has done its part, it was coint Rs-8 to 10k per piece...cost effective and rectified all its probelms on a latter stage.


So you are saying that there was no problem with INSAS and the whole army is going to get new guns just because they realized the caliber is not right?

I think that is why @CallofDuty2 and @Omega007 were arguing about.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omega007

Arsalan said:


> But these will be much more advanced compared to INSAS right?


Ahh....yes,technically.As per the available info,(I ain't really sure of how much of this is true as nothing has been released by ARDE yet) the new MCIWS is made of lighter Mg-Al alloys with the receiver being of milled construction and the internal parts being set on their place with precision drilling and spot wielding.Now this is a huge improvement over the present 1B1,which is made of stamped steel with the parts being set to their place with lots of rivets.
Then the MCIWS come equipped with other goodies attached like p-rail mounts,flip up sights,multiple calibers,better and lighter outer furniture,a bolt catcher,adjustable butt-stock, digital fire control computer with attached LRF for firing programmable air bursting grenades,ambidextrous cocking handle,mag release and firing selector levers etc etc and of course BETTER LOOKS!!
And lest I should forget,rumor is that the new rifle has the short stroke pistons,which are now in 'fashion' these days instead of that heavier long stroke one of INSAS,which in turn was a direct copy of the AKM.
So these are the supposed improvements over INSAS.



Arsalan said:


> and what about the INSAS, were there any kind of problems with that or it is a routine change/upgrade?


I've fired the INSAS and to be honest,it never gave me any troubles.But then,the ones we used were of top notch quality,everything was sparkling clean.So I wouldn't know how it would fair in the field,in dirt and mud with soldiers getting far lesser time to clean them up.




Arsalan said:


> Great, thanks!






Arsalan said:


> Well if we were in a court room, may be yes. However assuming we are all here to learn, references/links to prove ones point will help if they come from both sides. We will get a lot to learn then don't you think?


But we do not really know much about this new rifle yet.Heck,even the developmental trials are not over,with testing still going on with different prototypes and tech demonstrators.That's why I was surprised how did he reach to his conclusions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Not So Good

Arsalan said:


> G-3 was manufactured back in 1950, YES, some 65 years ago. The version we use are much more modern and advanced but even they are not as recently acquired/designed as the INSAS that was first manufactured only some 15 years ago!!
> 
> How can you ignore the 50 years difference?
> 
> The main assault rifle are not something that are meant to be replaced every 15 years! No one dies so unless there is some problem.
> They are to be produced in huge numbers, hundreds and thousands of guns and are meant to equip the army for much longer time periods. That is why i asked this question that was there a problem with INSAS that they are thinking/going to replace the entire stocks with a new gun only after some 15 years of its introduction?
> 
> 
> So you are saying that there was no problem with INSAS and the whole army is going to get new guns just because they realized the caliber is not right?
> 
> I think that is why @CallofDuty2 and @Omega007 were arguing about.


Yes fair enough, but why you are sarcastic about MCIWS


----------



## rockstarIN

Arsalan said:


> G-3 was manufactured back in 1950, YES, some 65 years ago. The version we use are much more modern and advanced but even they are not as recently acquired/designed as the INSAS that was first manufactured only some 15 years ago!!
> 
> How can you ignore the 50 years difference?
> 
> Th*e main assault rifle are not something that are meant to be replaced every 15 years! No one dies so unless there is some problem. *
> They are to be produced in huge numbers, hundreds and thousands of guns and are meant to equip the army for much longer time periods. T
> hat is why i asked this question that was there a problem with INSAS that they are thinking/going to replace the entire stocks with a new gun only after some 15 years of its introduction?
> 
> 
> *So you are saying that there was no problem with INSAS* and the whole army is going to get new guns just because they realized the caliber is not right?
> 
> I think that is why @CallofDuty2 and @Omega007 were arguing about.



What do you suggest, the period of usage of battle rifles in any army?

IA started using INSAS in 1990s and the problems which popped up while using in Kargil & Siachin. All the problems were rectified later. The new rifle will not come in a year or so. It will take at least 3-5 years, so INSAS will complete 20-25 years in army and those rifles will move to police force replacing the old .303


----------



## Immanuel

INSAS 1B1 is a good rifle and people who use it stand by it. Sure it is an outdated but the gripes are really about the caliber really. Problem with IA is that they need to speed up the trials process and get this over with. We need this new rifle asap. 5.56mm should be a law enforcement round i.e. to be used by Central/State armed police forces like CRPF, CISF, RPF etc. 7.62 to be used by paramilitary units like BSF/ITBP/RR and employ it in COIN ops. 6.8mm should be the round for general infantry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Not So Good

CallofDuty2 said:


> looks like some1 is found of old tech.
> you must be the one of drdo employee.
> who only praise there self made equipments.
> likes to enjoys old tech.
> happy with old designs.
> indian army will reject it after some more trails/if not then in mid service because of poor quality.even chinese cheap copy weapons is better than drdo weapons.


Relaxe and chill out till then


----------



## Omega007

CallofDuty2 said:


> looks like some1 is found of old tech.
> you must be the one of drdo employee.
> who only praise there self made *equipments*.
> likes to enjoys old tech.
> happy with old designs.
> indian army will reject it after some more* trails*/if not then in mid service because of poor quality.even chinese cheap copy weapons is better than drdo weapons.



You are late to the party chicken man,cause as far as I'm concerned,I'm through you and through this topic.See what kind of shit we have to deal with here each and every fuckking day, @Arsalan bro??



Immanuel said:


> INSAS 1B1 is a good rifle and people who use it stand by it. Sure it is an outdated but the gripes are really about the caliber really. Problem with IA is that they need to speed up the trials process and get this over with. We need this new rifle asap. 5.56mm should be a law enforcement round i.e. to be used by Central/State armed police forces like CRPF, CISF, RPF etc. 7.62 to be used by paramilitary units like BSF/ITBP/RR and employ it in COIN ops. 6.8mm should be the round for general infantry.



I agree to most part of this comment except the one where you said 6.8 Remington SPC should be made standard for general infantry.In my opinion,the decision of going with this round was fuckked up from day one,overall this round is a big disappointment,even the US SOCOM are not using it,for whom it was specifically designed.......they rather choose various match grade 5.56 like Mk262 or Mk318 rounds.
In my opinion,it's not yet too late to just let go off this SPC thing and change it to Grendel or even better,the 6.5X43 Lapua Scenar.That thing is a beast.


----------



## Not So Good

CallofDuty2 said:


> yup time will show how good is drdo's multi caliber weapon system.
> i mean look at the name how dumb its sound.
> 
> if its rejected by army and SF,and waste of our tax payer money, i will kill every1 who support drdo mcws.
> the result will be same as insas.


Relaxe buddy


----------



## halupridol

Yeh kab tak ban jayega,,,ya isme bhi tarikh par tarikh


----------



## arif hamza

looks badass

congratulations to our neighbors

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Omega007 said:


> You are late to the party chicken man,cause as far as I'm concerned,I'm through you and through this topic.See what kind of shit we have to deal with here each and every fuckking day, @Arsalan bro??.



Well about that particular post by @CallofDuty2 consdidering many much more serious offensive posts by him as well as by yourself. Instead of reporting or rating or deleting, i will request you both to please refrain from flaming posts and calling names. Instead if both of you can present some actual facts and reports supporting the argument that will not only make your argument sound better but it will also help remove lot of miss conceptions and help us all learn new things.

I have yet to see a report by @CallofDuty2 bro to support that the DRDO INSAS or this new gun or other systems are piece of crap as he suggest, neither have you provided any facts and figures about this new gun or even INSAS.

Personally, i will say that there must have been some serious issues with INSAS to make the army replace the gun so early. Caliber and such stuff can only be an excuse to cover the actual mess, main gun of armies ARE NOT replaced in such short periods if they are half decent. do not makes sense. For the new gun, i will say that it do look excellent on paper. I will look forward for some reports of trails supporting or disagreeing with this point of view about the new gun. Until that comes and someone can prove that the gun is not impressive, i will have to say that it looks good to me on paper. Let us see if someone can present some god facts to support or argue with this.



Not So Good said:


> Yes fair enough, but why you are sarcastic about MCIWS


Sarcastic?
WHERE? Please do point me to the post, i am sorry if you felt that way!
I am merely asking a question, i saw a good discussion about the system going on and thought it will be best to see if someone can help me with my query! What was sarcastic about it?



rockstarIN said:


> What do you suggest, the period of usage of battle rifles in any army?
> 
> IA started using INSAS in 1990s and the problems which popped up while using in Kargil & Siachin. All the problems were rectified later. The new rifle will not come in a year or so. It will take at least 3-5 years, so INSAS will complete 20-25 years in army and those rifles will move to police force replacing the old .303


Actually, NO,
The INSAS mass production only started in 1997 and FIRST rifles got into service in 98. Remember it is the First rifles!! So the first batch is just 14 15 years old, the last batches even much younger. This is NOT a normal life time of the main gun. You do not see them being replaced so early in there service unless there are some issues, some serious issues! 

Unfortunately, having this comments coming from a member with Pakistani flag will make it almost impossible for you people to admit, that is a fact and i cannot blame you for that. However, IF you can believe me, i am in no mood to troll or mock, just asking/saying all this to know and learn about the gun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

CallofDuty2 said:


> look closely if you can see,beside the paper design, the quality is cheap
> design is poor 1990s.
> and dont hope for durable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if you think mcws is better than beretta arx 160.you r a dumb.



OKy, this is an improvement over the previous trait of just calling names, the pictures are good, now if the time to step up i guess.

Can you point to the things you think are "obsolete" in this design? 
About durability, i assume your remarks come from the previous experiences with DRDO systems but what about the design? it looks sleek to me. It will be better if you can point out the thing in design that you think make it an obsolete design?
Also if you can share some views about durability that will be great, what makes you say/think so?

About comparing with Beretta, well i never said that this MCWS will be better then Beretta ARX. Some Indian members do claim such things but i think it is patriotism making them say such things more then any actual technological advantage. I am not interested in comparing this with Beretta! 
However, even if it is, or it is not, better, what about the price? also the fact that this MCWS will be an Indian product, i think that alone makes it a superior choice if the specs are similar. 
Also the most important thing is, will it be an improvement over the not so old INSAS that this gun will replace?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

CallofDuty2 said:


> its good that the old cheap insas is going to replace but replace it with modern one.
> 
> 
> 
> want me to point the obsolete.
> 
> havent you looked with open eyes or you forgot to were glasses if you do.
> the whole gun is a bad quality product.
> the whole frame is cheap and poor quality.
> and if you think its the best riffle in the world great then i wont argue.
> b cause army wants best AR. you dont know what is best. so you are calling it best.
> you all dont want the army to get best class future guns. thats all. the point.
> 
> i want best gun and you all want cheap old design drdo guns.



Ok, it would have been much better if you can tone down your words a little, still i see no "reasons" even with my eyes open and my glasses own as you suggested.

WHAT is that you think there is that makes it BAD QUALITY
What is definition of cheap frame? what makes you say that it is a cheap frame? i am just interested to know that point!
I NEVER SAID IT IS THE BEST RIFLE AND I AM NOT INTERESTED IN MAKING THAT JUDGEMENT< I WILL LEAVE IT TO YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE RELATED TO THE GUN DIRECTLY, THE INDIAN MEMBERS,

My question is a simple one, you say it is old obsolete design, what in this design is old and obsolete and what could make it modern? you say that the frame is cheap, what exactly you mean by that? what exactly is cheap in the frame? you think adding a few ornamental gems and gold platting will make the frame impressive and not a cheap one? or is there any technical issue that you have problem with and you are suggesting that that particular technical aspect makes it a cheap frame?

I REQUEST YOU TO PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US ALL and point us to these short comings that you suggest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

CallofDuty2 said:


> even iran makes best riffles and mini guns.
> 
> 
> 
> man how many times i tell yo the whole frame is cheap(*THE WHOLE BODY FRAME*) and the design is not modern,its look like early 1990 design.
> 
> havent you seen the quality of the riffle in the images.
> 
> take it side by side with others modern guns like 416/417,beretta,tar,FN scar etc you will notice the quality.
> all are high quality weapons.


oo bahiiiii,,, that is what i am asking!!

WHAT IS THERE ABOUT THE WHOLE BODY THAT MAKE IT LOOKS 1990 design?? What is your perception of a modern design or reliable and better frame?
It will help if you can put your finger on the PROBLEM you see in this MCWS. For example, if you want to say that an F-7 is no match for an F-16, you talk about the aerodynamics, payload, avionics, the radars, ECM the weapons package of F-16 that make it better then the F-7. What is the thing or things that makes this MCWS an F-7 and not an F-16!!
THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN POINT UNLESS YOU ARE MERELY TROLLING!!

How many times i need to ask you, WHAT YOU MEAN BY WHOLE BODY FRAME IS CHEAP. It is requested that you provide some reason that makes you think that it is cheap. Simple, it is a request!! If you can point out something at least i wont argu any further!

AND please, i am not praising or condemning the gun, I CANNOT UNLESS YOU OR THE OTHER PART PROVIDE ME WITH REASON TO PRAISE OR CONDEMN this weapon system. I cannot condemn this gun and declare it cheap and failure just based on some previous tank or plane of other failed projects of DROD. It is a new project and i just want to know about it. It is up to you to provide some reason for us to believe that it is a cheap frame. you think the shape is not ok (why? how will it effect the performance) you think the trigger mechanism is what makes it obsolete? (how?) the material or metallurgy is what is out dated (How?) WHAT exactly is that make you think it is a shitty gun, help us put finger on that PLEASE!!


----------



## rockstarIN

Arsalan said:


> Well about that particular post by @CallofDuty2 co
> 
> 
> Actually, NO,
> The INSAS mass production only started in 1997 and FIRST rifles got into service in 98. Remember it is the First rifles!! So the first batch is just 14 15 years old, the last batches even much younger. This is NOT a normal life time of the main gun. You do not see them being replaced so early in there service unless there are some issues, some serious issues!
> 
> Unfortunately, having this comments coming from a member with Pakistani flag will make it almost impossible for you people to admit, that is a fact and i cannot blame you for that. However, IF you can believe me, i am in no mood to troll or mock, just asking/saying all this to know and learn about the gun.



See I do check the merit of the post, not the flag etc to know the intention.Been here for more than 6 years, I do understand people and their intentions. 

The Insas programme starting in 1990 and like you say that it got into service in 1998 is factually wrong (at least IMO). We fought Kargil with this weapon and it is not easy to replace with all units within two years. It was with army before. 

There were issues with the rifles and were modified into excalibur and Kalantak. The serious issue is that it has got only 5.56 and no auto fire. excalibur has done very well in trails and may be the replacement of INSAS.


----------



## Arsalan

rockstarIN said:


> See I do check the merit of the post, not the flag etc to know the intention.Been here for more than 6 years, I do understand people and their intentions.
> 
> The Insas programme starting in 1990 and like you say that it got into service in 1998 is factually wrong (at least IMO). We fought Kargil with this weapon and it is not easy to replace with all units within two years. It was with army before.
> 
> There were issues with the rifles and were modified into excalibur and Kalantak. The serious issue is that it has got only 5.56 and no auto fire. excalibur has done very well in trails and may be the replacement of INSAS.


Well it is good to know that you try to judge a post on merit. In that case your only mistake is that you miss judged mine, i was not being sarcastic, if you felt so i am sorry and as requested will like to be pointed to that post.

AS for INSAS, i am sorry but you are wrong again, the first guns were INDUCTED in 1998 only with mass production starting only in 1997.You can search it on google or simply check in Wikipedia (even if wiki is not a very reliable source, it is for contradicting/decisive issue. Things like induction date or mass production time line is not something that someone will want to edit to get it wrong)
INSAS rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good to read about Excalibur and Kalantak. So you think this will be winner over the MCIWS? The report do suggest all the INSAS to be replaced right?
Or is that that this EXCALUBUR will be the gun that will be MCIWS?
They show a different gun under MCIWS, different then this excalibur


----------



## Immanuel

^^^
Well most of the western rifles failed in Indian conditions. The SCAR/HK are nice but are quite expensive to be acquired in large quantities even for India let alone Pak. Basic civil versions in US alone cost upward 2500 bucks. The MCWS whenever it is cleared for production will be made in updated factories, all of OFB's 40 odd factories are being upgraded with cutting edge tech. Over 4-5 Billion are being invested in upgrades of factories. INSAS 1B1 already has a very good build quality and many who use it have never had any issues with it. MCWS will be a reliable domestic weapon. That along with Excalibur will the main stay for the IA.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Not So Good

Arsalan said:


> oo bahiiiii,,, that is what i am asking!!
> 
> WHAT IS THERE ABOUT THE WHOLE BODY THAT MAKE IT LOOKS 1990 design?? What is your perception of a modern design or reliable and better frame?
> It will help if you can put your finger on the PROBLEM you see in this MCWS. For example, if you want to say that an F-7 is no match for an F-16, you talk about the aerodynamics, payload, avionics, the radars, ECM the weapons package of F-16 that make it better then the F-7. What is the thing or things that makes this MCWS an F-7 and not an F-16!!
> THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN POINT UNLESS YOU ARE MERELY TROLLING!!
> 
> How many times i need to ask you, WHAT YOU MEAN BY WHOLE BODY FRAME IS CHEAP. It is requested that you provide some reason that makes you think that it is cheap. Simple, it is a request!! If you can point out something at least i wont argu any further!
> 
> AND please, i am not praising or condemning the gun, I CANNOT UNLESS YOU OR THE OTHER PART PROVIDE ME WITH REASON TO PRAISE OR CONDEMN this weapon system. I cannot condemn this gun and declare it cheap and failure just based on some previous tank or plane of other failed projects of DROD. It is a new project and i just want to know about it. It is up to you to provide some reason for us to believe that it is a cheap frame. you think the shape is not ok (why? how will it effect the performance) you think the trigger mechanism is what makes it obsolete? (how?) the material or metallurgy is what is out dated (How?) WHAT exactly is that make you think it is a shitty gun, help us put finger on that PLEASE!!


You are banging head to the wall
He is well  You know what he is

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GURU DUTT

to bhaiyya ji in short : which assault rifle is coming to IA and in what numbers


----------



## Not So Good

Omega007 said:


> Who said it's better than ARX 160 you fucking piece of crap??And just because they used an existing barrel from an INSAS 1B1 to speed up the process doesn't make it crap.Do you know anything about guns??Anything at all?Have you ever put your hands on even an air rifle you little chicken shit??
> And what obsolete design you are talking about??Which feature the MCIWS doesn't have have that is present in your ARX 160??Be specific with your comment rather than your bs rants.
> Oh and by the way,that ARX 160has been given a shot by the Artmy and guess what??It failed miserably!!
> 
> 
> And how do you know the design is useless??What are the design aspects of this gun??Again,be specific rather than passing sweeping statements like this you ignorant cunt!!
> 
> There is no such thing as the best you mofo.It all depends on the perspective.Luckily the Army or the Government isn't stuffed by morons like yourself.
> 
> 
> So now you have a fortuyne teller,huh kiddo??And have you ever used the INSAS??Or even just put your hands on it??
> 
> 
> And what makes you think they can't make??
> 
> 
> I don't see the Army dumping it,it's still their standard issue personal weapon.
> 
> 
> Keep your point to yourself and shove it up your place where the sun doesn't shine,and keep it there until you grow a spine and a pair.;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's now how it works you piece of crap.Go get a decent schooling first.


Relaxe buddy he is just trolling, he doesn't know nothing about guns

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rockstarIN

Arsalan said:


> Well it is good to know that you try to judge a post on merit. In that case your only mistake is that you miss judged mine, i was not being sarcastic, if you felt so i am sorry and as requested will like to be pointed to that post.
> 
> AS for INSAS, i am sorry but you are wrong again, the first guns were INDUCTED in 1998 only with mass production starting only in 1997.You can search it on google or simply check in Wikipedia (even if wiki is not a very reliable source, it is for contradicting/decisive issue. Things like induction date or mass production time line is not something that someone will want to edit to get it wrong)
> INSAS rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Good to read about Excalibur and Kalantak. So you think this will be winner over the MCIWS? The report do suggest all the INSAS to be replaced right?
> Or is that that this EXCALUBUR will be the gun that will be MCIWS?
> They show a different gun under MCIWS, different then this excalibur*



I think the entire idea of multi cal rifles is under review by IA. Mostly Excalibur will get selected and will be two variants one for 7.62 & 5.56. 

MCIWS is different.


----------



## majid mehmood

man this weapon has same rpm, same effective range of g3 a3 BUT is light and is multi caliber plus some good sighting system but will not match m4a1 at any stage except sighting

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hkdas

majid mehmood said:


> man this weapon has same rpm, same effective range of g3 a3 BUT is light and is multi caliber plus some good sighting system but will not match m4a1 at any stage except sighting



rate of fire is as per army's requirement. effective range is same for M4. MCIWS and G3. 
US army's and indian army's requirements are different, M4's performance in sand, snow and muddy water are worse, while indian army want a rifle which can operate in all conditions.. just like AK. so you can't compare M4 with MCIWS because both are made to meet different requirements.


----------



## Omega007

Not So Good said:


> Relaxe buddy he is just trolling, he doesn't know nothing about guns


I'm cool as Coke.I'm just fuckking with him.


----------



## Omega007

CallofDuty2 said:


> man how many times i tell yo the whole frame is cheap(THE WHOLE BODY FRAME) and the design is not modern,its look like early 1990 design.


90s design,yeah yeah,as if outside looks have got anything to with usability of a system.If that's how you think,then I feel sorry for your parents,they have to bear your burden for their entire lives,cause you sure hell can't fend for yourself.You just lack the brain cells needed for that,plain and simple.



CallofDuty2 said:


> havent you seen the quality of the riffle in the images.


We all have.It's a milled system with precision drilling and spot weldings,



CallofDuty2 said:


> take it side by side with others modern guns like 416/417,beretta,tar,FN scar etc you will notice the quality.all are high quality weapons.


By high quality,you mean better and slicker looking outer furniture!!That's how you gauge the quality of a rifle??



CallofDuty2 said:


> compare the images with beretta and 417.you will notice.if not,then you are too paid by drdo to praise the gun.


So,you accept that you are paid by Beretta and HK??



CallofDuty2 said:


> like the arjun.tejas,insas,etc etc. all are low tech and low quality products by drdo.


Yeah,now Arjun.Just get outta here you idiot.Or smell some ***' as you said.


CallofDuty2 said:


> i dont like the barrelcompared to the h&K and beretta


Don't like the barrel,why??Just because it has got some notches on it??Doyou even know that INSAS has got a much longer and heavier barrel than what's on your super sexy ARX 160??And do you know what it means - it means,if I were to engage you in a deathy match,with I carrying an INSAS 1B1 and you an ARX,I could simply empty my whole mag into your *** even before you could reach to a distance from me,that would be within the effective range of your ARX!!



CallofDuty2 said:


> the bullet case ejection hole is looks like 1980 mp5 design


It's called ejection port,not hole,you fuccking piece of crap.And it looks that way because the ejection port cover had been removed from that prototype!!


CallofDuty2 said:


> the hand guard is poor quality and old design


The hand guards are not in anyway built by DRDO,it was bought off the shelf.And it can be replaced with something else in moment's notice if the Army wants.One can not determine whether a rifle design is good or poor by the looks of the hand guards.Only fools of your caliber indulge into such comparison.



CallofDuty2 said:


> the scope is not good as mars sight


So??It's an Israeli design,not a DRDO product.Army can change it if they feel like it.



CallofDuty2 said:


> upper receiver is old design


Prove it prick.



CallofDuty2 said:


> my whole point is about its look


That we all knew from the start,you don't have to say it loud.And that's precisely what makes you the sore loser.Fuckk off you illiterate cunt.



CallofDuty2 said:


> its look like a big mp5.


Far from it.But even if it does,what's wrong with that??



CallofDuty2 said:


> and dont you understand about meaning of quality. the quality of the whole gun is cheap.


Trust me,it's you who haven't got an iota of knowledge or understanding about the quality of a firearm design.Go learn a thing or two first,ignorant prick.



hkdas said:


> rate of fire is as per army's requirement. effective range is same for M4. MCIWS and G3.


Wrong.M4A1 has got much shorter range and lesser lethality compared to MCIWS due to the former being a carbine and later being a rifle.The M4 has a short,14" barrel,which means,its long distance performance would be poorer.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## Omega007

CallofDuty2 said:


> oh yeah, you are worst than me .look at the mirror and just say 1 good quality about yourself.


One - I can give you many more than that.For starters,my height, higher iq and better command over this language than you have, to name a few.


CallofDuty2 said:


> you are old ,ugly,useless and dumb as the insas.


How do you know??Wait,you are not the illegitimate son to that woman I used to fuckk,are you??Did your mum tell you about me??Was she satisfied??Come on,I wanna know.  





CallofDuty2 said:


> as you know all about guns like u r a god.


Ok,first of all,I never have claimed to know 'all' about guns,nobody does.But I certainly know much more than you do,that's for sure.
And second,stop using chat lingo,you little piece of dog shit.Grow up already.



CallofDuty2 said:


> ha.. i accept i know very less about guns,


You do not have to beat your breasts chicka,we all have figured that out by now.


CallofDuty2 said:


> but u, u are a whole peace of crab like the mcws.


Doesn't even make an iota of sense.This is what happens when you do not concentrate in your studies.Go back to your elementary school and get some real education this time,learn to write properly,illiterate sob.



CallofDuty2 said:


> you talk like u were born in drdo lab and pretend like you know everything.


I do not pretend,it's you who's been pretending to be a know all smart *** yet you know next to nothing on this subject.So who's the one been pretending??Don't answer that,it's a rhetorical question.




CallofDuty2 said:


> and what you are by the way. dont give false information to every1.


I'm the guy who screwed your mum,now chew on that and embrace me as your dad!! 




CallofDuty2 said:


> here is a drdo's sucker.


And you are a foreign dicck sucker.



CallofDuty2 said:


> pretend that knows every thing about drdo.
> your'e born in their lab when they were doing party and the shit in the labs.


Get a life loser.



CallofDuty2 said:


> want to tell the world how good is drdo.i feel laugh at the support of mcws piece of shit.


Again,get an education.You are just making yourself a laughing stock in front of everyone.Just learn the language for fuckk's sake!!



CallofDuty2 said:


> dont waste your time to advertise the mcws.


You are the one who's been advertising for the foreign rifles,on the other hand,I've been merely pointing out and correcting your mistakes.But you are just too dumb to realize that.


CallofDuty2 said:


> its not good nor would in future.bcause its made by drdo.


Yeah,because your mum told you so,right??



CallofDuty2 said:


> these fools are trying to get attention of the world.
> they think the mcws is the best weapon.beating beretta and colt m4.


You are not really a current affairs guy,are you??Ok,let me give you a quick update - both of your precious Beretta and Colt have already been defeated by an earlier generation rifle,so there is no reason to compare those to MCIWS.



CallofDuty2 said:


> ok @Omega007 give me a lesson on mcws then.
> 
> i will follow your information.


Like what??Be specific wrt what you wanna know and which lessons you wanna learn.



CallofDuty2 said:


> can you tell me if insas supports suppressors.


Of course it can,you have to take out the recoil compensator first though.Now do you even know what a compensator is,kiddo??



CallofDuty2 said:


> i love to suck your moms tits and love to massage her boobs.


Dude,stop copying me and come up with something of your own.





CallofDuty2 said:


> i sorry for your parents they both sucks each other and you suck theirs.


Think about yours.The guy you have been known as your da,isn't really him.That would be me, you prick. 





CallofDuty2 said:


> precision drilling have you ever saw a fn scar or the 416.they are preciously build art and a weapon.


First learn to spell that word properly you fucking moron.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Omega007

CallofDuty2 said:


> you started it first dude



That was not the point,the point is you have gone fully defensive.That's why you had to edit your post for 10 times in a couple of minutes!!That means you just got too angry to be able to think straight.Which means,you are kid,so don't try it.I'm the resident "Pain in The @ss" around here,the 23 -ve ratings bear the testimony to this fact.


----------



## Omega007

CallofDuty2 said:


> what post #6 ist not my post look carefully.



Sorry,I meant 106.Now look at it.


----------



## Omega007

Roybot said:


> Seriously fellas ?



The other guy got serious,not me. 



CallofDuty2 said:


> yeah that post 106.
> i havent edited it but rapidly replied to your one post so i can caught you offguard.



Same thing.The fact is,you went overdrive defensive!!


----------



## banvanaxl

Omega007 said:


> The other guy got serious,not me.
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing.The fact is,you went overdrive defensive!!




Where from? I mean where the fck from do these chumps climb out off.. Its like an effing plague of trolls.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ravindra1455

MilSpec said:


> does it now, with a machined receiver, it looks closer to the ar platform, with SCAR ergonomics and AK styled gas tube. For 5.56 caliber it retains Insas's barrel


are bhi nai nai style kahan se laye, ek gun to dusare se match to karegi hee
ya phir Esi


----------



## banvanaxl

CallofDuty2 said:


> now you want to start what ended with @Omega007



Son, My lil boy was an upstart too. Till I showed him daddy does indeed know better. Now off you go. Learn some shit and come back to talk to the chaps who toil day in and day out and have something worthwhile to show in their lives.

Do not troll here. This is a forum where people actually know shit. You feeling like blowing off steam do it in Bharat rakshak.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## banvanaxl

CallofDuty2 said:


> so whats your contribution here you too like others troll here.




You have a linkedin account son? I'll show you my contribution in RL. 

Btw. I am prolly the oldest member on PDF you've interacted with till date. A little respect would go a long way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ravindra1455

if


Zarvan said:


> Well INSAS was also their own but it didn't worked the way they wanted that to work so why we should waste money on start completely new project when we have options in the world and also we have pretty much upgraded both AK-47 and also HK G-3 according to our needs


If u will make your own it will save your money and easy availability of ammunition and u can mass production them according to your need.


----------



## hkdas

Omega007 said:


> Wrong.M4A1 has got much shorter range and lesser lethality compared to MCIWS due to the former being a carbine and later being a rifle.The M4 has a short,14" barrel,which means,its long distance performance would be poorer.


my source was wiki... 
M4 carbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ravindra1455

Zarvan said:


> Well because China is developing Good weapons they succeeded in doing so you failed only after few years you realized that INSAS didn't suit you than you also have miserable experience with your own Fighter Jet and not to mention Tank


are bhi agar koi kaam fail bhi ho jaye to kya har man leni chahiy, har cheese faist attempt me puri tarah se pass ho jaaye esa kahan likha he. Kya Pakistan koi cheese kyon nahi banata, isliye ki fail naa ho jaye?


----------



## banvanaxl

Omega007 said:


> Who know,who cares??The important thing is,we Bongs stick together,what say you partner??



It's just the sheer temerity of this chap that got me riled up. I would have actually given him a patient ear if he came up with a single justified point to defend his POV. 

Joined today and started spouting crap.

Seriously. 


You mate went easy on him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## banvanaxl

CallofDuty2 said:


> only being oldest dosent proof anything.
> 
> and no i dont have an linkedin ac.
> 
> and being about respect i would give u respect if u leave me alone.




And we will. We understand you are here because geopolitical issues and defence matters are of interest to you. We, that includes @Arsalan, @Omega007 and any other person you care to name welcome you here and only wish that you learn more before you comment on matters.

@Arsalan is a TT and deservedly so. @Omega007 has been here for ages and is a valuable contributor who can teach you lots of stuff only if you care to listen learn and be patient.

Respect is earned. The people I have named above have earned that respect. You however will have work for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## me_itsme

CallofDuty2 said:


> only being oldest dosent proof anything.
> 
> and no i dont have an linkedin ac.
> 
> and being about respect i would give u respect if u leave me alone.



Oh damn!! You are back again. Friendly advice, you have shit knowledge compared to many people out here. Just cause you play COD does not mean you know all stuff related to military and politics. Keep quiet browse through threads and ask your questions in a respectful manner.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## me_itsme

CallofDuty2 said:


> not that one .
> now i will be nice to all.i m rude and offensive i admit it but i cant change myself.
> i will note your advice.
> 
> 
> i am in steroids but not crying out loud.
> i will try to change my attitude next time.
> 
> 
> and the same is applied to u.also.



Hehe, even I am a gamer and I know how it is when online gaming everyone is mostly rude to everybody else haha. 

I am sure you will learn a lot here. Have fun


----------



## banvanaxl

CallofDuty2 said:


> *i am in steroids but not crying out loud.*
> i will try to change my attitude next time.




@Omega007 , comeon buddy you have to admit, bugger is kind of cute. 

And @CallofDuty2, protocol dictates that you do need to introduce yourself formally at the new members section. Create a new thread there so that we can all welcome you properly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omega007

CallofDuty2 said:


> i am in steroids but not crying out loud.
> i will try to change my attitude next time.
> 
> 
> and the same is applied to u.also.


See,you are mentally unstable,can't decide in one go,can't take firm decisions either,that's why the editing of same post multiple times,over and over again.You would do better to learn to get some grip over your emotions,just a friendly advice.


----------



## Arsalan

*Enough with the bull shit!*

I have requested you two in a civilized manner, not once but twice. This is not some Facebook page where you people can troll all you want. Proceed with the debate in a civilized manner or face consequences. You both can keep the knowledge about others families to yourself or discuss that on some personal blog, this is not a thread to do so. 

@Omega007 @ CallofDuty2

The people who have been quoting and appreciating abusive and trolling posts by either one of these two men must also be careful, have some dignity, you are not here for this or are you?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## majid mehmood

hkdas said:


> rate of fire is as per army's requirement. effective range is same for M4. MCIWS and G3.
> US army's and indian army's requirements are different, M4's performance in sand, snow and muddy water are worse, while indian army want a rifle which can operate in all conditions.. just like AK. so you can't compare M4 with MCIWS because both are made to meet different requirements.


as usaual liars
m4a1 is used by ssg
m4 has better rpm range
link
Colt M4 Carbine


----------



## Slav Defence

Post number 251 and 20 are reversed. @Robinhood Pandey .However,you must elevate your post quality.

Members are requested to mention me here and ask me for review rather then posting on my wall.

regards


----------



## hkdas

majid mehmood said:


> as usaual liars


who is lying?? 


majid mehmood said:


> m4a1 is used by ssg


did anyone say they don't use it?? almost every SF in this world uses M4. 


majid mehmood said:


> m4 has better rpm range


rpm.. yes
better range... no. 
Modern Firearms - M4 M4A1


----------



## Bossman

why no major military uses a multi calibre standard rifle? Is India setting itself for another failure after the INSAS. Typical mindset of being over smart but ending in failure.


----------



## majid mehmood

hkdas said:


> who is lying??
> 
> did anyone say they don't use it?? almost every SF in this world uses M4.
> 
> rpm.. yes
> better range... no.
> Modern Firearms - M4 M4A1


the website u showed is not the manufacturer 
which i showed u is from colt's website which manufacture it 
so dont show me unreliable sources 
india doesnt uses m4 it uses the old m16


----------



## hkdas

majid mehmood said:


> the website u showed is not the manufacturer
> which i showed u is from colt's website which manufacture it
> so dont show me unreliable sources
> india doesnt uses m4 it uses the old m16


the link i posted is world renowned site for small arms.. it is not an unreliable source.
india didn't use M-16. indian army and police forces use M4A1 since 2008.


----------



## majid mehmood

hkdas said:


> the link i posted is world renowned site for small arms.. it is not an unreliable source.
> india didn't use M-16. indian army and police forces use M4A1 since 2008.


but i showed u fron colt's website 
the guy who wrote this actually never analyze this arm rather took from open sources
even wiki can be said as renowned website but which is not true


----------



## hkdas

majid mehmood said:


> but i showed u fron colt's website
> the guy who wrote this actually never analyze this arm rather took from open sources
> even wiki can be said as renowned website but which is not true


many websites says the range of m4 is 500m. only colt clames they have 600m.


----------



## majid mehmood

hkdas said:


> many websites says the range of m4 is 500m. only colt clames they have 600m.


yes they because they manufacture it


----------



## hkdas

majid mehmood said:


> yes they because they manufacture it


others sites are famous weapons experts.. they have tested it.


----------



## majid mehmood

an american website even quoted as 550 to 600 meters


----------

