Future Indian Rifle

[The_Sidewinder]

I would like to see pics of Oman army using INSAS. Nepal used INSAS and they lost the civil war to maoists. Nepal was very vocal in their criticism of the INSAS rifle and called it junk. Bhutan is less of a country and more of a informal Indian state. They don't have the finance or the option of buying Tavors.

INSAS Rifles does not have issues, it has major issues. I don't know what your "friends in the army" told you but the scariest sound a soldier can hear in the battlefield is an empty click after pressing the trigger. It becomes even more scarier when the soldier realises his magazine is full but his gun won't fire. Unless you are a soldier in a battlefield whose gun got broken while the enemy keeps pumping bullets in your direction you will not understand why the INSAS is a piece of sh1t.

What exactly was the INSAS designed for, march-past parades?

Every crack unit in the army refuses the INSAS. From the special forces to the ghatak units to counter insurgency jawans. And yes, ghataks and special forces use 5.56 mm rounds as well. So why is INSAS being a 5.56 mm caliber rifle unsuitable for special ops? Because "it was never designed for it".

Whoever gave that retarded logic for the 5.56 mm round was joking and the other person took it seriously.

Armies opted for the 5.56 rounds because of simple reasons.

1. Combat occurred at ranges of 500 meters and less in modern warfare. A heavy caliber long-range bullet was unnecessary.

2. Rifles firing the 7.62x51 mm are too heavy, long and are an inconvenience for the infantry grunt.

3. It is difficult to control 7.62x51mm at full auto, the recoil is too heavy. A soldier can constantly keep shooting 5.56 mm rounds all day, but it is impossible to do so for a 7.62 round even in semi-auto.

4. Bullets are heavy, in fact very heavy. 10 kg of 7.62x51mm rounds may contain 90 bullets. 10 kg of 5.56x45 mm rounds will likely contain 200 bullets. 5.56mm caliber allows the infantry soldier to carry more rounds to the battlefield.

When you fire at the enemy you don't aim for his hand, leg or to injure him. Nobody does that. Every soldier will aim to kill the enemy else the enemy will kill you. And if injuring the enemy is the only goal then the same can be achieved with 7.62 mm rounds.

Whoever gave you the logic that 5.56 mm round is good because it injures the enemy rather than kill them never served in any armed force and is a troll.

About the first part,

Insas rifle with oman army

By the way, about the injury part, it was not me who proposed the Idea. It was DRDO & Indian army top brass who propossed it during developmental phase. Seems like except from declaring me a troll try to go through previous threads where these issues has been discussed till death.

About modern combat ranges within 500metres care to explain how the hell a soldier is supposed to shoot down his enemy at 50-100 metres at full auti mode. Have you fired a weapon yourself at such ranges. Due to the muzzle & thrust gun just swivles away from the target. But full auto mode does help in surpracing enemy fire by its intensity, also helpfull in laying down covering fire.

One thing more, INSAS has served even in siachen what does that tells you about reliability. About comparing with other imported guns, those countries has been developing guns since centuries. Do you know even M16 failed miserably during viatnam war where it used to jammed by mud, plastic mags used to break all the time. But that doesnt made it a bad weapon. Now its further developped cousin M4a1 is one of the best in the wrold.

IA needed something indegenious to replace FN-FAL, & it got INSAS which might not be best in the world but did its job well. We were not a superbly developped economy back in 1990s who can spend loads of cash importing expensive foreign guns for 1.2 million strong army. Period.

" Essentially. Many European countries continued to use 7.62 ammunition long after the US switched over. As a consequence most of the better assault rifles and assault pistols of the last 50 years have been Belgian and German, not American. There are other things, too, though. One can
carry much more 5.56 ammo because its lighter. But that reduced weight also means reduced lethality, and the bullet's greater speed doesn't come close to matching the hitting power of 7.62 bullets. Supposedly (meaning, while speaking to a Marine), the size of the bullet doesn't matter since a bullet to the head is a bullet to the
head...but who has time to do that outside of a shooting range? Most engagements happen <300 yards, and at that range what you
depend on is increased lethality, not accuracy. Also, supposedly, the 5.56 bullet is "more likely to bounce around inside the body, which does more damage." Except that they aren't proven to do so any more than a larger bullet will. They are, however, more likely to fragment upon entry, which leaves a much wider wound, but is less likely to cause
death unless taken to the gut. Which brings me to the third argument, which is that by
wounding rather than killing more strain is put on the enemy's force overall, as his support units and medics struggle to treat
and deal with wounded soldiers. A decent argument, but not particularly useful to a grunt with a dozen enemies bearing down on
him, who may not be entirely motivated to stop their assault just because of a single bullet. And you generally must hit each
soldier several times before you can stop him. Soldiers in Iraq, for example, have encountered insurgents so doped up that
they are completely unfazed by anything less than having a magazine emptied into them.
That's not exactly efficient, and not exactly comforting to the man holding the gun.
So in short, I think that small caliber ammunition is a waste of time and money, and does more harm than good."

Why did NATO adopt the 5.56 when it's hitting power was worse than the 7.62 ? [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

 

[Indian Patriot]

About the first part,

Insas rifle with oman army

By the way, about the injury part, it was not me who proposed the Idea. It was DRDO & Indian army top brass who propossed it during developmental phase. Seems like except from declaring me a troll try to go through previous threads where these issues has been discussed till death.

About modern combat ranges within 500metres care to explain how the hell a soldier is supposed to shoot down his enemy at 50-100 metres at full auti mode. Have you fired a weapon yourself at such ranges. Due to the muzzle & thrust gun just swivles away from the target. But full auto mode does help in surpracing enemy fire by its intensity, also helpfull in laying down covering fire.

One thing more, INSAS has served even in siachen what does that tells you about reliability. About comparing with other imported guns, those countries has been developing guns since centuries. Do you know even M16 failed miserably during viatnam war where it used to jammed by mud, plastic mags used to break all the time. But that doesnt made it a bad weapon. Now its further developped cousin M4a1 is one of the best in the wrold.

IA needed something indegenious to replace FN-FAL, & it got INSAS which might not be best in the world but did its job well. We were not a superbly developped economy back in 1990s who can spend loads of cash importing expensive foreign guns for 1.2 million strong army. Period.

" Essentially. Many European countries continued to use 7.62 ammunition long after the US switched over. As a consequence most of the better assault rifles and assault pistols of the last 50 years have been Belgian and German, not American. There are other things, too, though. One can
carry much more 5.56 ammo because its lighter. But that reduced weight also means reduced lethality, and the bullet's greater speed doesn't come close to matching the hitting power of 7.62 bullets. Supposedly (meaning, while speaking to a Marine), the size of the bullet doesn't matter since a bullet to the head is a bullet to the
head...but who has time to do that outside of a shooting range? Most engagements happen <300 yards, and at that range what you
depend on is increased lethality, not accuracy. Also, supposedly, the 5.56 bullet is "more likely to bounce around inside the body, which does more damage." Except that they aren't proven to do so any more than a larger bullet will. They are, however, more likely to fragment upon entry, which leaves a much wider wound, but is less likely to cause
death unless taken to the gut. Which brings me to the third argument, which is that by
wounding rather than killing more strain is put on the enemy's force overall, as his support units and medics struggle to treat
and deal with wounded soldiers. A decent argument, but not particularly useful to a grunt with a dozen enemies bearing down on
him, who may not be entirely motivated to stop their assault just because of a single bullet. And you generally must hit each
soldier several times before you can stop him. Soldiers in Iraq, for example, have encountered insurgents so doped up that
they are completely unfazed by anything less than having a magazine emptied into them.
That's not exactly efficient, and not exactly comforting to the man holding the gun.
So in short, I think that small caliber ammunition is a waste of time and money, and does more harm than good."

Why did NATO adopt the 5.56 when it's hitting power was worse than the 7.62 ? [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Can't see the pic, if its not an issue then please re-post it again.

No professional army will ever propose "injure only, not kill" weapon for their soldiers. It is clearly a hoax started by some troll. If you are a soldier and you are facing an enemy will you aim at his head or will you aim at his leg? And soldiers fire while lying in the prone position. That way when you shoot your bullet will hit the enemy in the face or upper torso, both extremely lethal places to be hit. Are you there to kill your enemy or save his life? Think logically.

Care to explain why armies around the world buy rifles with full auto mode? Let us say for argument's sake I agree that full auto is rubbish. Fine. Now explain to me why all international rifle makers make their rifles with full auto option, armies buy rifle with full-auto option and even the INDIAN ARMY now wants rifles with full-auto option. Answer me that and I will explain how you can hit a soldier at 500 meters using full auto.

How many gun fights take place in Siachen? And does the media report about the problems faced by jawans there about their equipment? The plastic magazines crack in the freezing temperatures. How are they supposed to withstand minus 40 degrees at 14,000 feet?

M16 was horrible, that's why US now uses the M4A1 rifle. What changes took place in the INSAS other than painting it black to "look cool"?

If you can then look at the INSAS closely, both the black and orange. Ignore the orange/black furniture and concentrate on the body - you will find a lot of rivets there. Modern rifles are not supposed to have so many rivets. It makes the weapon clumsy and adds unwanted weight to the body. The rivets in both black and orange are the same number, the safety catch is ergonomically hopeless - a soldier cannot change from lock to on while holding the pistol grip unless he has veryyyyy long thumbs. The safety catch in the black one is the same as the orange one.

So what exactly is different in the black?

India was not 1.2 million in 1990. The FN-FAL was replaced after the Indian army fiasco in lanka where the army lost a lot of jawans. The army found the 4.5 kg FN SLR too long and cumbersome for close quarter combat. They needed something lighter, compact and that carried more rounds. As a stop-gap measure over 100,000 bulgarian kalashnikovs were ordered. And soviet bloc kalashnikovs are dirt-cheap. That's why every militia in the world has them.

 

[The_Sidewinder]

Can't see the pic, if its not an issue then please re-post it again.

No professional army will ever propose "injure only, not kill" weapon for their soldiers. It is clearly a hoax started by some troll. If you are a soldier and you are facing an enemy will you aim at his head or will you aim at his leg? And soldiers fire while lying in the prone position. That way when you shoot your bullet will hit the enemy in the face or upper torso, both extremely lethal places to be hit. Are you there to kill your enemy or save his life? Think logically.

Care to explain why armies around the world buy rifles with full auto mode? Let us say for argument's sake I agree that full auto is rubbish. Fine. Now explain to me why all international rifle makers make their rifles with full auto option, armies buy rifle with full-auto option and even the INDIAN ARMY now wants rifles with full-auto option. Answer me that and I will explain how you can hit a soldier at 500 meters using full auto.

How many gun fights take place in Siachen? And does the media report about the problems faced by jawans there about their equipment? The plastic magazines crack in the freezing temperatures. How are they supposed to withstand minus 40 degrees at 14,000 feet?

M16 was horrible, that's why US now uses the M4A1 rifle. What changes took place in the INSAS other than painting it black to "look cool"?

If you can then look at the INSAS closely, both the black and orange. Ignore the orange/black furniture and concentrate on the body - you will find a lot of rivets there. Modern rifles are not supposed to have so many rivets. It makes the weapon clumsy and adds unwanted weight to the body. The rivets in both black and orange are the same number, the safety catch is ergonomically hopeless - a soldier cannot change from lock to on while holding the pistol grip unless he has veryyyyy long thumbs. The safety catch in the black one is the same as the orange one.

So what exactly is different in the black?

India was not 1.2 million in 1990. The FN-FAL was replaced after the Indian army fiasco in lanka where the army lost a lot of jawans. The army found the 4.5 kg FN SLR too long and cumbersome for close quarter combat. They needed something lighter, compact and that carried more rounds. As a stop-gap measure over 100,000 bulgarian kalashnikovs were ordered. And soviet bloc kalashnikovs are dirt-cheap. That's why every militia in the world has them.

Tried reposting but still the same problem.

@acetophenol little help here bro. Can you post some pics of Royal Oman Army using INSAS. Thank you in advance

Did you read my post carefully mate. Okey I am posting it again.
About modern combat ranges within
500metres care to explain how the hell
a soldier is supposed to shoot down his
enemy at 50-100 metres at full auti
mode. Have you fired a weapon yourself
at such ranges. Due to the muzzle &
thrust gun just swivles away from the
target. But full auto mode does help in
surpracing enemy fire by its intensity,
also helpfull in laying down covering
fire. Plus the added advantage it provides in close quater battle.


And hey no one is down playing role of Full auto mode.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Tried reposting but still the same problem.

@acetophenol little help here bro. Can you post some pics of Royal Oman Army using INSAS. Thank you in advance

Did you read my post carefully mate. Okey I am posting it again.
About modern combat ranges within
500metres care to explain how the hell
a soldier is supposed to shoot down his
enemy at 50-100 metres at full auti
mode. Have you fired a weapon yourself
at such ranges. Due to the muzzle &
thrust gun just swivles away from the
target. But full auto mode does help in
surpracing enemy fire by its intensity,
also helpfull in laying down covering
fire. Plus the added advantage it provides in close quater battle.


And hey no one is down playing role of Full auto mode.

I did read your post but you are contradicting yourself. Here you say auto fire has its advantage, INSAS lacks auto fire and you say that's not a problem. If IA is so against auto fire they won't be using AK and Tavor.

 

[acetophenol]

@The_Sidewinder : I don't have those pics bro,no pictures are there showing INSAS in Oman. I've been looking for the same too. Either the reports were false or the order must've been too small.

 

[Indian Patriot]

The reports would be false.

 

[Abingdonboy]

But in reality the INSAS failed miserably in Kargil war.

There were a few issues that came up in Kargil vis a vis the INSAS and they were soon rectified, like I said many people still criticise the INSAS for these early teething issues that were rectified over a decade ago!

It is hopeless in COIN operations and hence ordinary jawans preferred to use the AK-47.

s far as it has been seen no counter-insurgency force uses INSAS.

COIN is not sniper range but close range. And if automatic fire is so obsolete then all leading rifle manufacturers in the world would not provide that option in their rifles, nor would all leading militaries like US and NATO would buy rifles with auto option. But "only in movies" makes for a solid excuse though.

It was NEVER meant for COIN operations- the IA has always preferred the 7.62mm calibre for COIN activities (as do many militaries) and thus the units deployed in COIN ops are issued with the AK. The INSAS (firing the 5.56mm) is meant for the IA as their standard issue battle rifle and this is where it has served the IA and continues to do so.

The MCIWS is meant to address this calibre issue by having one weapon system that can fire both calibres (5.56 and 7.62)- when troops are deployed in COIN ops their rifles will be fire the 7.62mm cartridge, when they return to their peacetime/conventional positions their rifles will be converted back to fire the 5.56mm round.

One can hardly blame the INSAS for not being used in COIN activities when it was NEVER meant to do so.

Please don't compare the M4A1, G-36, FAMAS, Sa-80 rifles with the junk called INSAS.

Why not? All these rifles had issues when they first entered service and continue to have them to this day- the M4 was criticised by the US Army for jamming in dusty environments (not to mention the huge issues the M16 initially faced in Vietnam), the FAMAS is critiqued to this day for its poor ergonomics and weight, the G-36 has been plagued by issues by overheating barrels and has recently been dropped as the German Army's standard issue weapon for this very reason, the British army rejected the SA-80 initially as it was an all round pathetic weapon and it was not until they turned to the German firm Heckler and Koch who designed the "A2" variant that the rifles was adopted by the British military.

Just because you have it in your head the INSAS is a bad weapon doesn't make it true nor make it unique in the sense it has encountered issues in the past.

And with all due respect, painting the furniture black does not equate to rectifying issues.

Did I say painting black rectified these issues? All I said was the weight issue was rectified to a significant degree by adopting the lighter polymer furniture.

Can you please elaborate on the "impressive record" of INSAS

Millions of units in service across all arms for decades serving in the heights of Siachin to the jungles of Mizoram and the deserts of Rajasthan and every other environment you could possibly dream up doesn't seem impressive to you? If not then I won't waste any more time responding to your, rather ill informed and ignorant, rants.

 

[kakathiya]

basic INSAS is not going to be replaced with other system atleast in 5 years, the army is searching for better guns for the ghatak teams

 

[Indian Patriot]

There were a few issues that came up in Kargil vis a vis the INSAS and they were soon rectified, like I said many people still criticise the INSAS for these early teething issues that were rectified over a decade ago!

There were much more than "few issues". The rifles were not rectified long after Kargil war. It was Nepal who complained how their government soldier were sitting ducks in front of maoists thanks to INSAS rifles which would break, jam etc. in critical situations. No points for guessing which rifle the maoists were using.

The issues were not rectified a decade ago, sir. If they were then the army would not have issued a proposal for a new rifle a decade ago. For years the army was pressing for an INSAS replacement.

It was NEVER meant for COIN operations- the IA has always preferred the 7.62mm calibre for COIN activities (as do many militaries) and thus the units deployed in COIN ops are issued with the AK. The INSAS (firing the 5.56mm) is meant for the IA as their standard issue battle rifle and this is where it has served the IA and continues to do so.

The army has no problems using Tavor in Kashmir, Tavor is a 5.56 NATO standard rifle caliber. Hell the army even uses Berreta storm Cx4 which uses 9mm pistol rounds. Please do not give such absurd excuses to cover up INSAS failure.

It has served the Indian army and continues to do so for so long because of India's lightning fast acquisition process. Last time India purchased an arty gun was in 1988. Trials for artillery have been going on for 15 years. Trials for rifles will continue for 10 years.

The MCIWS is meant to address this calibre issue by having one weapon system that can fire both calibres (5.56 and 7.62)- when troops are deployed in COIN ops their rifles will be fire the 7.62mm cartridge, when they return to their peacetime/conventional positions their rifles will be converted back to fire the 5.56mm round.

One can hardly blame the INSAS for not being used in COIN activities when it was NEVER meant to do so.

One weapon capable of firing multi-calibers have been criticised in many armies as being impractical and a logistical nightmare. I know you will refute my claims but you can be rest assured MCIWS will end up a failure. Stick to one caliber not multiple ones.

South Korea had invested in K11. A rifle that fires 5.56mm rounds as well as 25mm air-burst smart grenade from an integrated launcher. The results were far less impressive than expected.

Why not? All these rifles had issues when they first entered service and continue to have them to this day- the M4 was criticised by the US Army for jamming in dusty environments (not to mention the huge issues the M16 initially faced in Vietnam), the FAMAS is critiqued to this day for its poor ergonomics and weight, the G-36 has been plagued by issues by overheating barrels and has recently been dropped as the German Army's standard issue weapon for this very reason, the British army rejected the SA-80 initially as it was an all round pathetic weapon and it was not until they turned to the German firm Heckler and Koch who designed the "A2" variant that the rifles was adopted by the British military.

M4A1 is different from M16 as apples are different from oranges. Rest of your superficial claims are that, superficial. A gun expert who has fired weapons will laugh when you claim a junk like INSAS as good rifle and G-36 which is arguably the best rifle in the world today as obsolete.

Tell me sir, if G-36 is so bad why is India using them? Why not use a 4.5 kg empty weight, 20 round carrying INSAS for their elite units?

Just because you have it in your head the INSAS is a bad weapon doesn't make it true nor make it unique in the sense it has encountered issues in the past.

Just because you want to believe INSAS is a good rifle it does not make it so. It jams, breaks, down, has double-feeding problems, loss of zero after cleaning, over-weight, and under-powered. For these reasons Indian Army wants a newer and better weapon.

Did I say painting black rectified these issues? All I said was the weight issue was rectified to a significant degree by adopting the lighter polymer furniture.

My God!! The INSAS does not weigh 4.5 kg without magazine because of Polymer. ROFLOL!!! Who told you that? It is junior school knowledge that metal will weigh more than polymer (unless the metal is aluminum). The INSAS is ridiculously heavy because of the lack of modern, proper engineering skills. Have you seen the rivets in the metal body of INSAS? Why are there so many rivets in a 21st century rifle? Those rivets are the main culprit for making the rifle cumbersome and heavy.

The black and orange polymer INSAS both have the same number of rivets, and the same sh1tty ergonomics for safety catch.

Millions of units in service across all arms for decades serving in the heights of Siachin to the jungles of Mizoram and the deserts of Rajasthan and every other environment you could possibly dream up doesn't seem impressive to you? If not then I won't waste any more time responding to your, rather ill informed and ignorant, rants.

A 1.2 million army cannot possibly have "millions of units" but never mind. I have seen "millions" of Indian police constables carrying world war one era .303 rifles because the government was not bothered to upgrade their police force. Using such pathetic antiques the Indian police force provided security. Fighting everything from mafia to terrorists. In 2008 the Mumbai police heroically defended the city from terrorists using .303.

You know what your problem is? When you run out of facts you get cranky and blame the other party for asking too many questions.

I think I know where you got this negative attitude from, the people there talk like you and are allergic to facts.

 

[GURU DUTT]

ditch every thing and make a very big contract with Israelies and mass produce tevor in indiaproblem solved

its very simple. light , compact ,practicle , very very low maintainence , extreamli well balaced and accurate and the best part it you can put any kind of sights/accesiories on it

 

[Indian Patriot]

Tavor is the weapon of choice for Indian army.

 

[The_Sidewinder]

Tavor is the weapon of choice for Indian army.

yeah specials ops do like them. But that will through MICWS to the drain.

@The_Sidewinder : I don't have those pics bro,no pictures are there showing INSAS in Oman. I've been looking for the same too. Either the reports were false or the order must've been too small.

No problem bro. Reports might be false.

 

[Max Pain]

Cause South Asians think foreign is better than domestic.

No wonder we get robbed off those multi billion dollar military industries