Then don't you think that the older FALs should have been put through periodic upgrades to keep them operable when the need arises??
Sorry for inordinate delay. Some ticklish topics and members kept the attention away.
FN FAL was cumbersome if anything at all. And you know our 'upgradation' capabilities are dubious at best. It is like the 'Dhanush' artillery system now being touted as home made. I have been saying it since 2009 that we had the blueprints of the Bofors FH77 which the OFB deliberately suppressed in order to ensure that we end up buying another new system from the foreign countries. The original agreement was for 500 pieces outright and 1500 to be produced under license, all had been paid for. But 2 decades and not a single piece was produced. It was only when Tata and Bharat Forge came out with their artillery systems, did OFB realise that it was loosing out and came out with decades old technology ....!!!
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.
Totally agreed. The benchmark of GSQR in IA is General Staff's Questionable Requirements. The concept of every tom dick and harry trying to make his 'mark' by changing the GSQR in the short tenure has had us badly. This was the saga of Arjun and this was also of LCA. Thankfully the present government decided to ram LCA down IAF's throat. Now it can actually be developed as it needs to be, with extensive user interface. That is why IN has been able o appear as a pragmatic force, it incorporated its designers with the Defence PSUs for an integrated approach towards platform development and systems integration.
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!!
Should I read between the lines here and assume CSM somewhere more professional? Well, you do know that it is the 'defaulter' who is the best soldier!!!
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.
That is a good question. Maybe 300 yards is a standard which is normal.
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??
In a CQB, at ranges of less than 20-25 meters, trust me full auto is a boon. You simply don't have the time to think. Majority of LC environment encounters wherein we have lost men is when our patrols came upon ingressing elements and it was a matter of who fired and got lucky first .... firing from the hip is what usually takes place and you need the full auto there ...
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.
More apt for room entry. Double tap is ideal and we use that ... there are no two views here I agree.
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.
No idea ... not into it.
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.
Noted. But go through this
http://aermech.in/zittara-multi-purpose-carbine-and-assault-rifleofbindian-army/
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!!
OFB Sucks ... like Joe Shearer was saying 'Icchapore' rifles. Totally agreed. Add to it the MoD policy and GoI equally useless in the whole deal.
