CRPF asks govt to replace Insas guns with AK rifles

[Indian Patriot]

M16 could do full auto,3 round burst and single shots. Trained soldiers never go full auto. You waste your ammo,get your barrel heated up and probably hit nothing. Thats why going full auto is called 'spray and pray'. All armys train to take down enemys in a single shot,in every situation. In Indian Army ,its 'Ek Goli,Ek Dushman'. There are videos of live combat of USMC in Afghan and Iraq,even under intense conditions,M4 carbine does not go full auto. They may pull trigger continuously in bursts,but not full auto. Its the SAW that goes full auto,that too in intervals. You see army men going full auto only in movies and video games.

M16 cannot go full auto because the rifle was difficult to handle at that heavy recoil. Troops complained about that and M16 was made into semi-automatic and 3 round burst mode.

And please don't give the "wastage of ammo" as an excuse. Every single modern rifle in this world has the full auto option. These manufacturers and makers of weapons are not civilians like you and me. They are professionals who know what they are doing. If full auto is so bad then armies around the world would have banned the use of such weapons in their units. You obviously underestimate the need for superior firepower. Trained soldiers will go full auto when the enemy is 20 meters away from them. Even if you fire semi-automatic your barrel will heat up. Every time a bullet is fired the barrel heats.

And it is not possible to take down an enemy in a single shot. Ask any soldier and he will laugh. It is next to impossible to shoot the target 30 times in a shooting range. In battlefield there will be smoke, distraction, enemy fire, and fear and fatigue. Not to mention that the enemy won't be sitting in one position forever. This ek goli ek dushman thing is good for motivating the soldiers to improve accuracy. In real life it would be dus goli ek dushman.

Soldiers prefer the semi-automatic option. Please read carefully what I have written before commenting. Every modern rifle has four levers - safety, semi-automatic, 3 round burst, full automatic. Though in some cases 3 round burst may be missing. In normal combat situations semi-auto fire is the best. In close quarter combat, defeating numerically superior enemies or breaking out of an ambush you will need full auto.

Army men went full auto in the battle of Stalingrad. Check for PPSH-41 and its crucial impact on the war.

Keep in mind that every army comes out with their own doctrines and styles. IA has its own,and they know better. Carrying a 200 round mag does affect the mobility of the gunner. And no matter whatever type gun (portable) you carry,you go full auto for like 30-60 rounds,your barrel will be cherry hot red. 30 round mags are easier to carry,and mag change gives you interval for barrel cool down. And INSAS mags are interchangeable,LMGs can fire rifle mags and vice versa. And another point is, an INSAS LMG will perfectly blend in with other rifles so the enemy won't know who is the support gunner. An INSAS LMG can fire accurate shots with point accuracy and still go full auto. IA always could've got belt fed LMGs if they wanted,yet they sticked to Mag fed LMGs,coz thats their doctrine and they know what they are doing. Even USMC has been using 30 round mag fed M27 Infantary Automatic Rifles in the SAW role.
M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, and I repeat that doctrines can be flawed. The IA had the policy of evacuating posts during winter in LoC. In 1999 they got a rude wake up call when the Pakistanis intruded in Kargil, Drass and Batalik. In Kargil war battle tactics had to be changed and improvised under enemy fire. In 2001 it took months to mobilise the IA to the border. This resulted in enormous international pressure on India and the element of surprise was lost. Then the army changed the doctrine from strike sorps to cold start. Doctrines are not permanent, what worked in the past can become obsolete in the present. And it is the IA who is demanding the replacement of INSAS.

SAW and other light machine guns usually come in 150-200 round magazines. Be it America, Russia or the Israeli Negev. Check for any modern squad automatic weapon and you will find it is belt-fed.

You say 30 round mags are easier to carry. What do you base your judgement on? How many 30 round mags will the gunner carry. And if the gunner is carrying 200 rounds then the weight would ultimately be the same. NATO soldiers carry anything between 100-180 pounds of equipment on their body. And these are regular soldiers, not commandos or special forces units. Why do you think there is so much emphasis on physical fitness? Army soldiers are trained to carry heavy loads for long distances and fight the enemy carrying these loads.

The LMG is heavier than the assault rifle for the specific reason that a heavy barrel takes longer to heat up. And waiting for the barrel to cool down when the enemy is raining bullets on you would mean that you will end up dead. That's why modern armies carry spare barrels for the LMG which they are trained to change in battle conditions withing seconds. And a squad does not have only one LMG, US and NATO forces have atleast two to three machine gunners so that the others can keep firing when one is doing the barrel replacement.
Mags being interchangeable is not that great an advantage. Would a rifleman sacrifice his magazine for the LMG or would the machine gunner sacrifice his mag for the rifleman? Enemy won't be looking with binoculars to identify the machine gun to know who is the gunner. LOL! The gun that goes tat-tat-tat-tat would be the machine gunner, the moment you fire your weapon both your position and your weapon is identified. That's how snipers fight each other, that's how soldiers triangulate on the position of the enemy and that's why every platoon has a designated marksman. And the Indian army does use belt fed LMG of Israeli and Russian origin.

INSAS has seen conflict in Kargil,NE,Kashmir and peace keeping missions and countless trainings missions. INSAS rifle is being changed not because INSAS is a bad rifle.but because of IA's decision to use Multi cal rifles. Tavour will never be a replacement for INSAS.OFB did not merely change the colour of the INSAS,its a rifle with improved metallurgy. It weighs less than its earlier brothers.

The INSAS was looked down with disgust during the Kargil conflict. It jammed, broke down, was inaccurate and the plastic mags cracked in harsh weather conditions. In Kashmir it is AK and TAR-21 doing their business. INSAS weighs 4.2 kg empty. A 7.62 x 51 mm SLR weighs 4.5 kg. The rifle is too heavy for a 5.56 mm caliber. Its range is 400 meters. It is inferior to the AK, never mind the TAR-21.

IA is forced to buy the junk DRDO and OFB make. Trishul was scrapped and now they are going for Barak missiles. Arjun tank is still under development for the last 30 years.

I am not a scientist so I cannot comment on the changes in metallurgy But I can comment on things which can be noticed by simple observation. If you have seen pics of INSAS rifles you will find a lot of rivets which is missing in most modern rifles. It is unnecessarily complicated, too heavy and lacks fire-power. A 3.2 kg rifle can carry a 30 round mag and shoot accurately to 500 meters and also has the option to go full auto, and a 4.2 kg rifle can carry a 20 round magazine and shoot till 400 meters and has no option to go full auto. Any professional soldier would choose the former..

Another important point is that,5.45 MM FMJs were designed to penetrate the body armour and unless it strikes a bone,it won't unleash enough kinetic energy to disable the enemy. It merely enters the enemy,and leaves penetrating the armour. This will leave him wounded which is perfect while fighting a profesional army,as they will have to give medical attention to their wounded buddy. So its perfect to wound him rather than killing him. Thats not the case with 7.62 mm rounds. Its bloody powerful,unleashing enough KE to knock you down. Perfect for Counter Insurgency roles as its better to kill insurgents.

You mean 5.56 mm I guess. NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are going back to 7.62 mm rounds and bringing out HK 416 rifles.

Do not pointlessly blame INSAS and its makers,being a member of a defence forum you should know better not to blame a piece of equipment that has served meritoriously in our services for years.

Calling INSAS a junk is not pointlessly blaming anybody but simply stating what is true. It is an outdated and obsolete rifle. The fact that the very best units in IA are armed with TAR-21, and even AKs in some instances, is proof enough where INSAS stands in comparison with other rifles.

 

[Indian Patriot]

I think the reason many Indians here are trying to defend junk like INSAS only because of ego issues. Admitting INSAS as an obsolete weapon, more so in a Pakistani forum, would mean admitting to an Indian failure and this is unacceptable for some Indians.

But I believe that admitting a mistake is the first step to correct the a mistake. INSAS was a failure from day one. The rifle itself is a copy of AK-47 (minus the reliability and firepower), FN-FAL, Galil, and a host of other weapons. Soldiers have often complained about the weight, unnecessary complications, high maintenance, and faulty magazines which tend to crack under extreme weather conditions. The rifle tends to jam often which is extremely disturbing news for a soldier. Then there are other issues like ammunition, INSAS can carry only 20 rounds while the standard ammo feed for a 5.56 rifle is 30. Lack of automatic fire option and its prohibitively high cost. IA can buy 4 AK-47 for the cost of 1 INSAS rifle, perhaps even more.

The problem of a heavy and semi-automatic weapon in new evolving battlefields was learnt during Indian peace-keeping operation in Sri Lanka. In the mid-90s IA ordered bulk purchase of AK-47 east Europe to address the issue. I have read many reports, articles, opinion on the INSAS rifle by journalists, defence experts, retired military officers etc. and they are of the view that there are pressing concerns about the rifle.

I am not a technical expert but some of the technical terms used to describe the problems of INSAS are double-feed, loss of zero after cleaning, hang-fire and problems with heat guard, coking lever, ergonomics etc.

Instead of trying to paint the INSAS from bright orange to black the DRDO/OFB should have designed a new and better rifle. Failing to do that the IA should have simply imported the AK or other reliable rifle by the truckloads.

 

[acetophenol]

M16 cannot go full auto because the rifle was difficult to handle at that heavy recoil. Troops complained about that and M16 was made into semi-automatic and 3 round burst mode.

And please don't give the "wastage of ammo" as an excuse. Every single modern rifle in this world has the full auto option. These manufacturers and makers of weapons are not civilians like you and me. They are professionals who know what they are doing. If full auto is so bad then armies around the world would have banned the use of such weapons in their units. You obviously underestimate the need for superior firepower. Trained soldiers will go full auto when the enemy is 20 meters away from them. Even if you fire semi-automatic your barrel will heat up. Every time a bullet is fired the barrel heats.

And it is not possible to take down an enemy in a single shot. Ask any soldier and he will laugh. It is next to impossible to shoot the target 30 times in a shooting range. In battlefield there will be smoke, distraction, enemy fire, and fear and fatigue. Not to mention that the enemy won't be sitting in one position forever. This ek goli ek dushman thing is good for motivating the soldiers to improve accuracy. In real life it would be dus goli ek dushman.

Soldiers prefer the semi-automatic option. Please read carefully what I have written before commenting. Every modern rifle has four levers - safety, semi-automatic, 3 round burst, full automatic. Though in some cases 3 round burst may be missing. In normal combat situations semi-auto fire is the best. In close quarter combat, defeating numerically superior enemies or breaking out of an ambush you will need full auto.

Army men went full auto in the battle of Stalingrad. Check for PPSH-41 and its crucial impact on the war.

The INSAS was made according to the requirements issued by the Army , it was tested by the Army and was taken into the service and is used by the army. The INSAS has seen enough conflicts successfully to prove its might. Further more, variants of INSAS with full auto was always available, it was the Army alone which chose not have them.

You don't need to teach Indian Army about its doctrines, they know what they are doing. Army's around the world may use belt fed LMGs, but IA has been prefering Mag fed LMGs over Belt fed ones, and "These manufacturers and makers of weapons are not civilians like you and me. They are professionals who know what they are doing."

Again, Belt fed INSAS LMG was also available,it was the Army which chose not to have them!

The INSAS was looked down with disgust during the Kargil conflict. It jammed, broke down, was inaccurate and the plastic mags cracked in harsh weather conditions. In Kashmir it is AK and TAR-21 doing their business. INSAS weighs 4.2 kg empty. A 7.62 x 51 mm SLR weighs 4.5 kg. The rifle is too heavy for a 5.56 mm caliber. Its range is 400 meters. It is inferior to the AK, never mind the TAR-21.

IA is forced to buy the junk DRDO and OFB make. Trishul was scrapped and now they are going for Barak missiles. Arjun tank is still under development for the last 30 years.

I am not a scientist so I cannot comment on the changes in metallurgy But I can comment on things which can be noticed by simple observation. If you have seen pics of INSAS rifles you will find a lot of rivets which is missing in most modern rifles. It is unnecessarily complicated, too heavy and lacks fire-power. A 3.2 kg rifle can carry a 30 round mag and shoot accurately to 500 meters and also has the option to go full auto, and a 4.2 kg rifle can carry a 20 round magazine and shoot till 400 meters and has no option to go full auto. Any professional soldier would choose the former..

Don't go blindly by the specs on the paper, it could be a totally different game in the field.

INSAS did had its share of issues in the Kargil, no issues. Every weapon had its set of issues, INSAS too, which were corrected later on. INSAS played its part in winning the war

To save lives on the front, production of INSAS rifles used in Kargil has to increase : OFFTRACK - India Today

INSAS has seen more service and action in Kashmir than the Tavours. In almost every encounter there are men in action with INSAS and Aks not the Tavours, .

To summarize the key problems you find with INSAS are,

1. Lack of Full auto-----> Variants of INSAS with full auto available; Army chose not to use them, so ask IA instead of blaming INSAS and its makers


2. Lack of Belt fed Mag for INSAS LMG---------> INSAS Belt Fed LMG was available; Army chose not to use them;so ask IA instead of blaming INSAS and its makers

3.Over weight-------------------------> True, INSAS weighs more than other rifles of its class. But the weight falls within the requirements of the Armed Forces.




To add some more points,

***INSAS costs very much less compared to other modern rifles

***INSAS has proved successfully in the most demanding Indian condition-dust,snow,water,mud

***INSAS is in service with IA,IAF,IN,ICG,BSF,CRPF,CISF,ITBP and almost every armed force in the country

***Advantages of 7.62mm rounds over the 5.56mm round in CI environment is well known, and is the primary reason for preferring AKs.

***INSAS is easily maintainable, complete stripping and assembling done within 60 seconds or less.


***Indian army has changed its doctrine and is opting for multi caliber rifle. The change of doctrine is what has paved the way for INSAS's exit, not because the INSAS is bad. In this sector too the MCWS has taken several features from INSAS. Neither INSAS nor Tavour nor AK fits into the Mult-Cal need of IA.

***INSAS is not a futuristic rifle, but it was built as a good, reliable, cost effective general issue rifle and it has done its role perfectly.

 

[Indian Patriot]

The INSAS was made according to the requirements issued by the Army , it was tested by the Army and was taken into the service and is used by the army. The INSAS has seen enough conflicts successfully to prove its might. Further more, variants of INSAS with full auto was always available, it was the Army alone which chose not have them. View attachment 178036

1. When were the requirements issued? The army could have asked for a better bolt-action rifle during WW2, and if DRDO had come up with a rifle in 1960 when the rest of the world had advanced to SLR and automatic rifles it means the project is a failure.

The request for a new rifle was put forward to replace the FN FAL 7.62x51 mm rifle. By the time INSAS was ready army was using AK-47 and very happy with the performance.

INSAS saw conflict in Kargil where it was criticised by army and media both. It was unreliable, jammed, too heavy, not enough ammo and practically useless. Even today IA uses Tavor and Kalashnikov in counter-insurgency operations.

You don't need to teach Indian Army about its doctrines, they know what they are doing. View attachment 178036

You are right. The IA knows best and that is why they are demanding the withdrawal of INSAS and a new replacement.

Army's around the world may use belt fed LMGs, but IA has been prefering Mag fed LMGs over Belt fed ones, and "These manufacturers and makers of weapons are not civilians like you and me. They are professionals who know what they are doing." View attachment 178036

IA is NOT preferring mag-fed Ben guns. Better trained units of IA use the Russian PKM. Present units are also equipped with Israeli Negev.

Just because IA has not replaced its entire inventory of WW2 era guns does not mean they are happy with it. Many battalions of IA do not have kevlar armor and NVG sights. Now are you going to say it is a conscious decision on the part of the army or is it a lack of funds?

Don't go blindly by the specs on the paper, it could be a totally different game in the field.

INSAS did had its share of issues in the Kargil, no issues. Every weapon had its set of issues, INSAS too, which were corrected later on. INSAS played its part in winning the war View attachment 178036

And you are supposed to know better because you have inside information? INSAS did not play its part, Bofors won the war for the army.

INSAS has seen more service and action in Kashmir than the Tavours. In almost every encounter there are men in action with INSAS and Aks not the Tavours View attachment 178036

Two photographs don't mean anything. Those troops using INSAS may not have been equipped with Tavor.

The best units of army use Tavor and it is the weapon of choice.

To summarize the key problems you find with INSAS are,

1. Lack of Full auto-----> Variants of INSAS with full auto available; Army chose not to use them, so ask IA instead of blaming INSAS and its makers


2. Lack of Belt fed Mag for INSAS LMG---------> INSAS Belt Fed LMG was available; Army chose not to use them;so ask IA instead of blaming INSAS and its makers

3.Over weight-------------------------> True, INSAS weighs more than other rifles of its class. But the weight falls within the requirements of the Armed Forces. View attachment 178036

1. It is the army calling for replacement of INSAS. So blame them for calling INSAS a shitty rifle.

2. Army chose not to use a belt-fed LMG or a belt-fed INSAS LMG? Because the army is very much using PKM and Negev LMG which is imported and belt-fed. Manybe the INSAS belt-fed LMG is a worthless weapon and the army was too disgusted to induct it.

3. The weight was NEVER in the placed requirement. NO 5.56 mm rifle in the world weighs more than 4 kg without ammo.

The problems of INSAS are more than that.

1. It carries only 20 rounds while other 5.56 mm rifles carry 30 rounds as standard. They also have provisions to feed 50/72 round magazine boxes/drums but INSAS lacks such improvisations.

2. 5.56 mm was chosen so that soldiers can carry more bullets. While a terrorist can fire a 30 round carrying AK-47 that fires 7.62 mm rounds, Indian army soldiers will have to do firing a 5.56 mm INSAS that has only 20 rounds.

3. There are problems of jamming in the rifle which has never been rectified.

To add some more points,

***INSAS costs very much less compared to other modern rifles

***INSAS has proved successfully in the most demanding Indian condition-dust,snow,water,mud

***INSAS is in service with IA,IAF,IN,ICG,BSF,CRPF,CISF,ITBP and almost every armed force in the country

***Advantages of 7.62mm rounds over the 5.56mm round in CI environment is well known, and is the primary reason for preferring AKs.

***INSAS is easily maintainable, complete stripping and assembling done within 60 seconds or less.


***Indian army has changed its doctrine and is opting for multi caliber rifle. The change of doctrine is what has paved the way for INSAS's exit, not because the INSAS is bad. In this sector too the MCWS has taken several features from INSAS. Neither INSAS nor Tavour nor AK fits into the Mult-Cal need of IA.

***INSAS is not a futuristic rifle, but it was built as a good, reliable, cost effective general issue rifle and it has done its role perfectly. View attachment 178036

1. AK-47 of Romanian import would cost even less than INSAS. And any solider would prefer AK any day over INSAS. .303 rifles also cost very less, should we equip our entire army with .303 rifles?

2. AK-47 has the best results in any conditions. AK does not even need cleaning like the INSAS does.

3. AK is in service with every armed force in India.

4. If that is the case why is IA using Tavor in COIN operations? And why did you post pictures of IA carrying INSAS? Did the IA forget its own doctrine according to you?

5. INSAS requires delicate maintenance. Modern rifles can be stripped and assembled in 40 seconds, not 60.

6. INSAS is a copy of AK, Galil and God knows how many other rifles. The army was forced to use the INSAS rifle due to DRDO lobby and replacing entire battalion of 400 needs a lot of money which was not sanctioned. Also the process of buying foreign arms takes a decade in India and is not like buying burgers from McDonalds. What was the army supposed to be using till new rifles come?

INSAS is worthless piece of junk and should have been replaced 10 years ago.