The rationale behind 5.56 was sensible. But evolution of our security challenges took place at a rate faster than most nations can change gear to meet them.The rationale behind reintroduction of 7.62 is the recognition that a conventional war is unlikely and we need a weapon for the asymmetric warfare that is the new norm.
Then don't you think that the older FALs should have been put through periodic upgrades to keep them operable when the need arises??
Read the quoted post as a reply to your post claiming rusting of weapons in storage of CAPFs. Which was inaccurate. The mainstay INSAS is being phased out with no new orders by CAPFs. Please join this statement with the overall context. Didn't say you said they love INSAS.
Yes,because as you have already pointed out, INSAS was designed for accurate fire over relatively longer distances and was never designed for such operations, especially in a dense jungle environment where more often than not shiit gets up close and personal for obvious reasons, which you're obviously aware of.
But whose fault is that??Definitely not that of the developers??I mean they are just technocrats, they have got next to no reckoning about field operations and neither they form the GSQR, they just do what's asked of them.It's the Army which had set forward the requirements and it's they who should have anticipated all possible scenarios and problems they might have to face in the future.I'm really sorry to say this but it just shows their shortsightedness and inability to plan ahead, no tow way to put it into perspective.
Regarding your experience of firing in NCC(?),
Yep,NCC, I rose to the rank of a Sergeant.Yeah yeah, nothing impressive, I know, but what they say - yeah, I was never the brightest bulb on the post, especially when it came to discipline and following orders!!
at range it sounds great ek goli ek Dushman. That is to try and make the firer improve grouping. It has nothing to do with any practical application.
Yeah ok, but that's not what the "range masters" use to tell us!!They said even the army cadets were only trained to take aimed single shots only, except ofcurse the LMG and MMG operators!!
By the way, what's the maximum range our boys are trained to shoot at with their rifles without the application of scopes??I heard it's 500 yards for US Marines.Feel free not to give an answer if it's deemed to sensitive an information.
As for why single round, again for firing practice. But fire on burst mode is practiced too, and over sustained fire invariably the pin broke. Check at your end. In CI you won't have the luxury of ek goli ek dushman would you?
Of course not but still, don't you think that having a full auto setting would still be unnecessary or may be even dangerous because soldiers might go through a lot more ammo in the hit of battle and might end up getting dry in the middle of a firefight??You know like the Americans GIs in Vietnam??And besides, one can also stimulate automatic fire even in semi auto mode by successive trigger pulls??That way, the operator will get to retain a higher degree of balance and control over his shot dispersion and ammo expenditure and also properly suppress the enemy??I heard that's how the USMC and US Army has been training their men to operate in urban warfare.
Good you have fired both FN FAL L1A1 and INSAS.
And .22 Long Rifle in the beginning and then graduating to .303 and then SLR and at the end, INSAS.As you may know, only the final year cadets are given the opportunity to fire a few rounds with INSAS.
I am sure you would have fired the Bren LMG and INSAS too.
Nah man, no such luck there.
In terms of accuracy the latter is a great weapon.
So true, I remember some of our batch mates consistently putting their shots in really tight groupings at 100 meters, sometimes even within 1" groupings although that was somewhat rare.By the way, have you folks ever calculated MOA of INSAS 1B1??I think, it should be within 2 MOA in the hands of a shooter who has been sufficiently trained on it.
About CAPFs in anti Maoist operations liking AKMs, in valley same people like x95s. Totally dependent on individual and training.
Please try to understand the point I'm trying to make here.The X 95s you are talking about are the 5.56 chambered carbine versions, which had been bought off the shelf!!The ones I'm talking about are the SMG versions, chambered for 9mm rounds, aka the zittara which had been licensed manufactured by the OFB.The complains against them were that the blowback operation made it somewhat unstable but the most serious one was that 9mm bullets were deemed too slow and too blunt they lacked range and precision and didn't have any worthwhile effect against tangos hidden behind dense undergrowths.But as you know,the M43 rounds used in the AKMs works really good against such natural obstacles, so.
Quality is issue in INSAS. Hence my analogy of a stick.
I see.About that, I remember you saying sometimes back that the series produced version of the INSAS rifles were exactly opposite than the prototypes that were earlier shown to you people ??
So doesn't it mean that the problem is not really with the developers or even the design of the rifle itself but it has got more to do with crappy quality control on the part of the manufacturers, the OFB being the ones in this instance??
And frankly, it was the OFB who should have ensured the INSAS remains relevant with periodic upgrades, making it more ergonomic and lighter with subsequent batches by using better materials and by use of precision spot welding instead of mindlessly riveting the parts together and give a crappy finish??After all, all the production engineering data had been passed on to them by the ARDE a long time ago!!
