What's new

India's own multi caliber rifle

can you Sir explain a" moron" like me as to why you think im a "moron" :azn:

Of course,why not??For starters,your inherent inability to form the simplest of sentences and your utter lack of knowledge about syntax and punctuation,coupled with lack of basic comprehension abilities!!Satisfied yet??:azn:

please also care to tell me how can you say i had no experience with guns
Because you did not!!Simply,a chap who does not know the weight difference between an SS109 and M80 and who thinks M43 and M80 has got same characteristics,will never be considered someone who has experience with firearms.It's as simple as that kid.
and whatever i had said is "garbage" please shed some light on that "your awesomeness" :pop:

Cause it was garbage,plain and simple..............and cause I can not sugarcoat my words.

what owr defnce forces need is a single cal &simple yet powerfull gas/piston oprated bull pup assult rifle with at least 18" barrel made of a modular polymor body that has a easy charging handle like that on tevor with 4 picca tenni rails on 12,3,6 &9 O' clock positions with a special empasis of easier cleaning and maintanence

That's your opinion matey,every one and his mother have got one,so don't try pass your wet dream as a fact.And besides,I guess our defence forces qualified enough to decide what's best for them and what is not and they do not need your 'all knowing wisdom' to guide them.If they had needed a bullpup,they would have chosen one by now.But the evidence suggest the fact to be contrary.So keep your opinion to your damn self bro.
 
There is nothing wrong in India as far as this thing is concerned.The had come up with a bullpup version of INSAS way back in the 90s and another,multi caliber one a few years ago.Guess what............both of them got rejected without any user evaluation.That should be enough indication to find out Army's intention wrt their choice of rifle design.And bullpup is nothing special or out of this world..........well may to the fanboys.But to the real pros,it isn't really an issue.
If india still cannot provide a proper [homemade] assault rifle to its armed forces till date than I don't know whats right about it.
Look its not about Bullpup or Conventional, its about superiority in the battle. Whichever system, design provides that. Questions are being raised about the procurement policies. The bottom line is there is an "inherent" flaw in the Army's so called higher ups or REAL PROS.
Its not limited to rifles only by the way.
Last thing we want is to blind ourselves with patriotism and get carried away.
 
.

@Omega007 ,
8FEMxlG.gif

video of LMG variant of INSAS fire in Fully auto mode seems to have very less recoil than the the JVC. what you think about that?? a sub mechine gun have more recoil than an LMG??

Good question but again I have to rely on guess work here cause I haven't fired the JVPC (or the LMG version of INSAS,but it's quite identical to the assault rifle version from what I've heard).
Ok,now lets get to it,shall we??
For starters,there could be more than one reasons and factors involved behind this apparent high muzzle rise of the JVPC (formerly known as MSMC).
First,I do not know about its gas system,so that would be a problem.But by its looks,the gas system seems to be a long stroke piston and if that is indeed the case,then this can explain your question.Now a long stroke piston is heavy and as you know,it moves back and forth with every cycle,to move the bolt carrier assembly.What it means is that,you have got a heavy chunk of metal moving constantly back and forth,there by shifting the center of gravity of the gun,which in turn make it unstable and make the muzzle to rise up - pure law of physics.
Now the INSAS LMG has got the same internal operating system,but it's also more balanced due to its heavier weight.So the naturally the muzzle rise is significantly lower - again,pure law of physics.

Secondly,the INSAS LMG is of a conventional design.So most of its systems,including the bolt carrier assembly,is place ahead of the pistol grip and the center of gravity is towards the front - this also makes it a more balanced weapon,which limits its muzzle rise and that in turn contributes in giving it more stability during long bursts.
But as the MSMC is of a semi bullpup design,its systems are placed behind the pistol grip and the center of gravity is towards its rear.Which means,there is nothing in MSMC to counter balance the muzzle rise.

And thirdly,the ammo used in JVPC is much more powerful compared to the 9mm parabellum used in most firearms of its class.So that contributes to its apparent high recoil as well.

But these are all my assumptions,simply because I haven't fired it personally.I would say,you would be better off to ask @OrionHunter ,he used to be a high ranking infantry officer and definitely has got much much more info and experience in this subject compared to someone like me.


during your time in NCC you should have fired the INSAS rifle,
Yes,I have.But this is kinda wrong assumption if you ask me.Because only those who go all the way up to level C,gets to fire the INSAS. Our @Mike_Brando also happens to be an NCC cadet but didn't finish thecourse and could not get his hands on INSAS.Ain't it so Mikhail?? :D

during your time in NCC you should have fired the INSAS rifle,can you tell me more about the recoil and accuracy of insas compared to AK?

Yes,I can.Although I've never personally fired the AKM,but I've heard and seen enough of it to be able to get a fair idea about its characteristics.
About the comparisons,lets rate these two in respect to some reference points

1.Operation: AKM - Long stroke piston,rotating bolt.
INSAS - same as above.


2.Weight - AKM is sigficantly lighter than INSAS.

3.Overall length - Again.AKM is ahead due to its shorter overall length,hence more maneuverable in tight spots.

4.Firepower - AKM has got full automatic mode of operation where as INSAS 1B1 has only burst fire mode.So in close quarters,AKM is ahead.

5.Accuracy - In this case,INSAS wins hands down.I have seen my batch mates achieving sum MOA accuracy at 100 meter distance,that they could constantly put bullets in 1 cm grouping,which is basically impossible with AKM.The best AKs can achieve 4-5 MOA at 100 meters,which would be considered sub par in most armies.All this happens due to the sloppy tolerances of AKM,the developers intentionally sacrificed its accuracy for ultimate reliability..........that when ever you pull the trigger,your AK will go boom,now where it will actually hit is a million dollar question in itself.

Watch this following video,especially from 6.50 minute onward to know what I'm saying


6.Range - INSAS has got a an effective range of more than 450 yards without any assault scope (upto 550-600 yards with an assault scope).But with AKM,it is basically very hard to hit a man size target at more than 200 meter distance,because the M43 ammo drops way too faster and its sights are just not made for precise shooting.

7.Bullet trajectory - Again INSAS takes the cake here.The 5.56 NATO has got the flattest trajectory among the small arms bullets,where as the M43 is one of the worse in this regard,it has got more of a parabolic trajectory,the bullets just drop way too faster and earlier due to their heavier weight,slow muzzle velocity (about 700 meter/sec) and its very poor ballistic coefficient.
What it means is that,with INSAS (and any other firearm chambered for 5.56 NATO) a shooter can reliably engage targets at much longer distances,without having to compensate too much for the bullet drop and lose sight of the target.

8.Sights - Again INSAS,hands down.In fact it would be an out right insult for INSAS to be compared with AK in this regard.The AK has got the worst possible sight among assault rifles - a rudimentary open V sight,with nonexistent sight radius and the rear sight being a good 10'" away from the shooter's eye!!Then,the sights can not zeroed in without using specialized tools.Basically,the original sights are just crap.
On the other hand,INSAS sight is basically the same as that of the M16s,totally optimized for long distance precision and best of all,the sights can be manually zeroed in,by turning the elevation and windage knobs, without using any specialized tools.

9.Ergonomics - Again INSAS. Its firing selector and charging handle are much more easily accessible compared to that on the AK.

10. Modularity - Again INSAS. Although being far from ideal,the INSAS has got a rail,which can be used to mount OFB produced optics.Or one could use it to mount a picatinny rail adapter and then use it to mount optics from international market.

11.Balance - INSAS is much more balanced than AK.You already have seen the video of the LMG,so I don't think it needs any further explanation.

12.Reliability - Well,I don't really have to spell it out which one is more reliable.


So as you can see,both has got their pros and cons.It depends on the situation,the terrain and type of enemy you are expected to face etc.
For example,if your area of operation happens to be a dense jungle,where you are not supposed to engage your enemy beyond 40 yards,AK would be your perfect choice.
But if you are to engage your enemy in an open terrain,where there is good visibility and your line of sight is not obstructed by trees or other objects,INSAS would be your choice because you want to kill or incapacitate your enemy before he can do the same to you.
So that's it.Now if you have any trouble understanding anything or you have to ask something on this topic,feel free to ask.
.

If india still cannot provide a proper [homemade] assault rifle to its armed forces till date than I don't know whats right about it.
Look its not about Bullpup or Conventional, its about superiority in the battle. Whichever system, design provides that. Questions are being raised about the procurement policies. The bottom line is there is an "inherent" flaw in the Army's so called higher ups or REAL PROS.
Its not limited to rifles only by the way.
Last thing we want is to blind ourselves with patriotism and get carried away.

And I ask you again,how do you know "india still cannot provide a proper [homemade] assault rifle to its armed forces till date"??How did you come to this conclusion,may I ask??I simply fail to understand,where you are pulling these arguments out from,since according to your own testimony,you have never even come close to a firearm.
And please!!Save your blind patriot nonsense for some one else!!I've been termed as a traitor multiple times,by multiple Indians, in this very forum for supporting the INSAS over foreign rifles and for criticizing the Army higher ups for their love of the same.So as I told you,save those for someone else.

And as for those so called superior rifles,a great many of them,including the Beretta ARX 160 (claimed to be the best in the world by many),IWI Galil ACE and Bren CZ repeatedly failed in Thor desert and high altitudes.............so many times that Army had to scrap the multical rifle tender altogether.But the 'ugly and crude looking inferior' Excalibur Essentially an INSAS 1B1 with full auto mode and different outer furniture) passed the trials,with only 2 failures during continuous firing of a whopping 24000 rounds of ammunition.
You wanna hear more??Fine,then know this - BSF has got 30000 Beretta MX9 Storm sub machine guns,that are now rusting in their storage because they were marred with problems.Now they have got back to their 'inferior and crude' INSAS.
Then there is beloved Tavor,how could I forget??Ask our @vk17 ,a serving COBRA officer,about his great experience with your Tavors. :D
 
Last edited:
Of course,why not??For starters,your inherent inability to form the simplest of sentences and your utter lack of knowledge about syntax and punctuation,coupled with lack of basic comprehension abilities!!Satisfied yet??:azn:


Because you did not!!Simply,a chap who does not know the weight difference between an SS109 and M80 and who thinks M43 and M80 has got same characteristics,will never be considered someone who has experience with firearms.It's as simple as that kid.


Cause it was garbage,plain and simple..............and cause I can not sugarcoat my words.



That's your opinion matey,every one and his mother have got one,so don't try pass your wet dream as a fact.And besides,I guess our defence forces qualified enough to decide what's best for them and what is not and they do not need your 'all knowing wisdom' to guide them.If they had needed a bullpup,they would have chosen one by now.But the evidence suggest the fact to be contrary.So keep your opinion to your damn self bro.
lolzzz sirji so all you can make of me is that since my spelling mistakes and grammer are not good i dont know anything about "guns" well i cant help it but the fact of the matter is indian made guns are over milled yet crude and look like a shabby hotch potch mix of some old and new types of guns avilable in international market

now what we need is a single cal bull pup assult riflewith a 18"+ lenth barrel with a better pojectile wich is light yet very effective (accuracy & range of 5.56 & stopping power of 7.62) that can perform with ease in all types of war secnarios (urban, CQB & conventional long range) and is easy to use , carry , clean by any soldier in any situation


and thats what Indian Army needs and bullpup version of excalibur can do it with ease what do you say to it
 
lolzzz sirji so all you can make of me is that since my spelling mistakes and grammer are not good i dont know anything about "guns" well i cant help it but the fact of the matter is indian made guns are over milled yet crude and look like a shabby hotch potch mix of some old and new types of guns avilable in international market

Another proof that you do not know anything about guns.And not just that,apparently you lack basic comprehensions too.You can not follow what is written to you in very simple terms.
By the way,looks have got nothing to do with the effectiveness of a gun..........looks do not and can not kill.See what happened to those super sexy foreign guns in the multi cal competition.

now what we need is a single cal bull pup assult riflewith a 18"+ lenth barrel with a better pojectile wich is light yet very effective (accuracy & range of 5.56 & stopping power of 7.62) that can perform with ease in all types of war secnarios (urban, CQB & conventional long range) and is easy to use , carry , clean by any soldier in any situation


and thats what Indian Army needs and bullpup version of excalibur can do it with ease what do you say to it

And how do you know what they need??Did they whisper you in your ears??They have already made it clear that they do not want a bullpup for the regular infantry and like it or not,that's how it's gonna be.Plain and simple.You (or me for that matter) can not dictate what the Indian Army need.Yeah,you could have said that you wished Indian Army to induct X - Y - Z but what you are doing is beyond nuts.
 
Yes,I can.Although I've never personally fired the AKM,but I've heard and seen enough of it to be able to get a fair idea about its characteristics.
About the comparisons,lets rate these two in respect to some reference points

1.Operation: AKM - Long stroke piston,rotating bolt.
INSAS - same as above.


2.Weight - AKM is sigficantly lighter than INSAS.

3.Overall length - Again.AKM is ahead due to its shorter overall length,hence more maneuverable in tight spots.

4.Firepower - AKM has got full automatic mode of operation where as INSAS 1B1 has only burst fire mode.So in close quarters,AKM is ahead.

5.Accuracy - In this case,INSAS wins hands down.I have seen my batch mates achieving sum MOA accuracy at 100 meter distance,that they could constantly put bullets in 1 cm grouping,which is basically impossible with AKM.The best AKs can achieve 4-5 MOA at 100 meters,which would be considered sub par in most armies.All this happens due to the sloppy tolerances of AKM,the developers intentionally sacrificed its accuracy for ultimate reliability..........that when ever you pull the trigger,your AK will go boom,now where it will actually hit is a million dollar question in itself.

Watch this following video,especially from 6.50 minute onward to know what I'm saying



6.Range - INSAS has got a an effective range of more than 450 yards without any assault scope (upto 550-600 yards with an assault scope).But with AKM,it is basically very hard to hit a man size target at more than 200 meter distance,because the M43 ammo drops way too faster and its sights are just not made for precise shooting.

7.Bullet trajectory - Again INSAS takes the cake here.The 5.56 NATO has got the flattest trajectory among the small arms bullets,where as the M43 is one of the worse in this regard,it has got more of a parabolic trajectory,the bullets just drop way too faster and earlier due to their heavier weight,slow muzzle velocity (about 700 meter/sec) and its very poor ballistic coefficient.
What it means is that,with INSAS (and any other firearm chambered for 5.56 NATO) a shooter can reliably engage targets at much longer distances,without having to compensate too much for the bullet drop and lose sight of the target.

8.Sights - Again INSAS,hands down.In fact it would be an out right insult for INSAS to be compared with AK in this regard.The AK has got the worst possible sight among assault rifles - a rudimentary open V sight,with nonexistent sight radius and the rear sight being a good 10'" away from the shooter's eye!!Then,the sights can not zeroed in without using specialized tools.Basically,the original sights are just crap.
On the other hand,INSAS sight is basically the same as that of the M16s,totally optimized for long distance precision and best of all,the sights can be manually zeroed in,by turning the elevation and windage knobs, without using any specialized tools.

9.Ergonomics - Again INSAS. Its firing selector and charging handle are much more easily accessible compared to that on the AK.

10. Modularity - Again INSAS. Although being far from ideal,the INSAS has got a rail,which can be used to mount OFB produced optics.Or one could use it to mount a picatinny rail adapter and then use it to mount optics from international market.

11.Balance - INSAS is much more balanced than AK.You already have seen the video of the LMG,so I don't think it needs any further explanation.

12.Reliability - Well,I don't really have to spell it out which one is more reliable.


So as you can see,both has got their pros and cons.It depends on the situation,the terrain and type of enemy you are expected to face etc.
For example,if your area of operation happens to be a dense jungle,where you are not supposed to engage your enemy beyond 40 yards,AK would be your perfect choice.
But if you are to engage your enemy in an open terrain,where there is good visibility and your line of sight is not obstructed by trees or other objects,INSAS would be your choice because you want to kill or incapacitate your enemy before he can do the same to you.
So that's it.Now if you have any trouble understanding anything or you have to ask something on this topic,feel free to ask.
.
if the major gun makers failed to produce a gun with better accuracy, light weight, better handling and reliability, which IA is demanding. then what you think about our DRDO made EXCALIBUR?? how did that rifle manage to pass the trail??
in that video says that AKs simple design makes it to check the error(from 16:25 in the video) . but the MCIWS's design is more like m-16, so army wants a weapon more like m-16 than AK?? why did DRDO place that reloading liver(i don't know what is its name) in front of the Buts of the rifle(like in m-16) instead of placing it in the side(like in AK)??
 
Last edited:
if the major gun makers failed to produce a gun with better accuracy, light weight, better handling and reliability, which IA is demanding. then what you think about our DRDO made EXCALIBUR?? how did that rifle manage to pass the trail??

You would be making a mistake if you think that those guns like ARX 160 or Bren CZ are worse than Excalibur.No,that wasn't what I was trying to imply.Those guns are very light weight and accurate but also more maintenance intensive and costly.But biggest problem with foreign guns is that they were never designed keeping Indian terrain and climate onditions in mind!!So obviously they did not fare too well in this condition.Even the Tavor had suffered from reliability issues in its first days of service.

in that video says that AKs simple design makes it to check the error(from 16:25 in the video) . but the MCIWS's design is more like m-16, so army wants a weapon more like m-16 than AK??
The problem with AK design is that it's not at all modular.The receiver is of a single piece type,which means you simply can not modify or customize the caliber as per your need.
But in the AR 15 platform,the receiver is segmented into an upper and lower part.The lower part houses the trigger group,the stock and the pistol grip.The upper receiver house the bolt carrier assembly.Which means,if you want to change the caliber,you would only need remove the upper and change the barrel and breech and you can get a new gun.Basically,the AR 15 models allow you to customize them as per your need.

Then there is another problem with AK style receiver - that you have place the rear sight on top of the dust cover,which means every time you remove the dust cover to clean your rifle,your sight alignment is getting effed up and you need to zero in your sight every time,which needless to say,is not a enviable thing.No such problem with AR 15 design,as both front and rear sights are placed on the same body - the upper receiver that is.

These are few of the reasons why ARDE selecting an AR 15 style receiver, I could come up with.

why did DRDO place that reloading liver(i don't know what is its name) in front of the Buts of the rifle(like in m-16) instead of placing it in the side(like in AK)??

That would be the Charging handle (aka cockiing handle).The reason why they moved it in front of the stock - ergonomics or should I say to make it 'ambidextrous',so that both rightys and leftys can operate the rifle without having to struggle.
 
You would be making a mistake if you think that those guns like ARX 160 or Bren CZ are worse than Excalibur.No,that wasn't what I was trying to imply.Those guns are very light weight and accurate but also more maintenance intensive and costly.But biggest problem with foreign guns is that they were never designed keeping Indian terrain and climate onditions in mind!!So obviously they did not fare too well in this condition.Even the Tavor had suffered from reliability issues in its first days of service.
that is not an excuse, now every army wants a gun which can work in every environment. if they don't want that kind of gun then why did US army did a Individual Carbine competition?? and the dust test result was this:
The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds, the FN SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages

if those guns are like this then what kind of test did indian army conducted on Excalibur, which had only 2 stoppages??

That would be the Charging handle (aka cockiing handle).The reason why they moved it in front of the stock - ergonomics or should I say to make it 'ambidextrous',so that both rightys and leftys can operate the rifle without having to struggle.

did MCIWS had to pull charging handle every time during reloading(like AK)?? or it works after hitting bot release(just like in M4 and AR)??
 
.



Good question but again I have to rely on guess work here cause I haven't fired the JVPC (or the LMG version of INSAS,but it's quite identical to the assault rifle version from what I've heard).
Ok,now lets get to it,shall we??
For starters,there could be more than one reasons and factors involved behind this apparent high muzzle rise of the JVPC (formerly known as MSMC).
First,I do not know about its gas system,so that would be a problem.But by its looks,the gas system seems to be a long stroke piston and if that is indeed the case,then this can explain your question.Now a long stroke piston is heavy and as you know,it moves back and forth with every cycle,to move the bolt carrier assembly.What it means is that,you have got a heavy chunk of metal moving constantly back and forth,there by shifting the center of gravity of the gun,which in turn make it unstable and make the muzzle to rise up - pure law of physics.
Now the INSAS LMG has got the same internal operating system,but it's also more balanced due to its heavier weight.So the naturally the muzzle rise is significantly lower - again,pure law of physics.

Secondly,the INSAS LMG is of a conventional design.So most of its systems,including the bolt carrier assembly,is place ahead of the pistol grip and the center of gravity is towards the front - this also makes it a more balanced weapon,which limits its muzzle rise and that in turn contributes in giving it more stability during long bursts.
But as the MSMC is of a semi bullpup design,its systems are placed behind the pistol grip and the center of gravity is towards its rear.Which means,there is nothing in MSMC to counter balance the muzzle rise.

And thirdly,the ammo used in JVPC is much more powerful compared to the 9mm parabellum used in most firearms of its class.So that contributes to its apparent high recoil as well.

But these are all my assumptions,simply because I haven't fired it personally.I would say,you would be better off to ask @OrionHunter ,he used to be a high ranking infantry officer and definitely has got much much more info and experience in this subject compared to someone like me.



Yes,I have.But this is kinda wrong assumption if you ask me.Because only those who go all the way up to level C,gets to fire the INSAS. Our @Mike_Brando also happens to be an NCC cadet but didn't finish thecourse and could not get his hands on INSAS.Ain't it so Mikhail?? :D



Yes,I can.Although I've never personally fired the AKM,but I've heard and seen enough of it to be able to get a fair idea about its characteristics.
About the comparisons,lets rate these two in respect to some reference points

1.Operation: AKM - Long stroke piston,rotating bolt.
INSAS - same as above.


2.Weight - AKM is sigficantly lighter than INSAS.

3.Overall length - Again.AKM is ahead due to its shorter overall length,hence more maneuverable in tight spots.

4.Firepower - AKM has got full automatic mode of operation where as INSAS 1B1 has only burst fire mode.So in close quarters,AKM is ahead.

5.Accuracy - In this case,INSAS wins hands down.I have seen my batch mates achieving sum MOA accuracy at 100 meter distance,that they could constantly put bullets in 1 cm grouping,which is basically impossible with AKM.The best AKs can achieve 4-5 MOA at 100 meters,which would be considered sub par in most armies.All this happens due to the sloppy tolerances of AKM,the developers intentionally sacrificed its accuracy for ultimate reliability..........that when ever you pull the trigger,your AK will go boom,now where it will actually hit is a million dollar question in itself.

Watch this following video,especially from 6.50 minute onward to know what I'm saying


6.Range - INSAS has got a an effective range of more than 450 yards without any assault scope (upto 550-600 yards with an assault scope).But with AKM,it is basically very hard to hit a man size target at more than 200 meter distance,because the M43 ammo drops way too faster and its sights are just not made for precise shooting.

7.Bullet trajectory - Again INSAS takes the cake here.The 5.56 NATO has got the flattest trajectory among the small arms bullets,where as the M43 is one of the worse in this regard,it has got more of a parabolic trajectory,the bullets just drop way too faster and earlier due to their heavier weight,slow muzzle velocity (about 700 meter/sec) and its very poor ballistic coefficient.
What it means is that,with INSAS (and any other firearm chambered for 5.56 NATO) a shooter can reliably engage targets at much longer distances,without having to compensate too much for the bullet drop and lose sight of the target.

8.Sights - Again INSAS,hands down.In fact it would be an out right insult for INSAS to be compared with AK in this regard.The AK has got the worst possible sight among assault rifles - a rudimentary open V sight,with nonexistent sight radius and the rear sight being a good 10'" away from the shooter's eye!!Then,the sights can not zeroed in without using specialized tools.Basically,the original sights are just crap.
On the other hand,INSAS sight is basically the same as that of the M16s,totally optimized for long distance precision and best of all,the sights can be manually zeroed in,by turning the elevation and windage knobs, without using any specialized tools.

9.Ergonomics - Again INSAS. Its firing selector and charging handle are much more easily accessible compared to that on the AK.

10. Modularity - Again INSAS. Although being far from ideal,the INSAS has got a rail,which can be used to mount OFB produced optics.Or one could use it to mount a picatinny rail adapter and then use it to mount optics from international market.

11.Balance - INSAS is much more balanced than AK.You already have seen the video of the LMG,so I don't think it needs any further explanation.

12.Reliability - Well,I don't really have to spell it out which one is more reliable.


So as you can see,both has got their pros and cons.It depends on the situation,the terrain and type of enemy you are expected to face etc.
For example,if your area of operation happens to be a dense jungle,where you are not supposed to engage your enemy beyond 40 yards,AK would be your perfect choice.
But if you are to engage your enemy in an open terrain,where there is good visibility and your line of sight is not obstructed by trees or other objects,INSAS would be your choice because you want to kill or incapacitate your enemy before he can do the same to you.
So that's it.Now if you have any trouble understanding anything or you have to ask something on this topic,feel free to ask.
.



And I ask you again,how do you know "india still cannot provide a proper [homemade] assault rifle to its armed forces till date"??How did you come to this conclusion,may I ask??I simply fail to understand,where you are pulling these arguments out from,since according to your own testimony,you have never even come close to a firearm.
And please!!Save your blind patriot nonsense for some one else!!I've been termed as a traitor multiple times,by multiple Indians, in this very forum for supporting the INSAS over foreign rifles and for criticizing the Army higher ups for their love of the same.So as I told you,save those for someone else.

And as for those so called superior rifles,a great many of them,including the Beretta ARX 160 (claimed to be the best in the world by many),IWI Galil ACE and Bren CZ repeatedly failed in Thor desert and high altitudes.............so many times that Army had to scrap the multical rifle tender altogether.But the 'ugly and crude looking inferior' Excalibur Essentially an INSAS 1B1 with full auto mode and different outer furniture) passed the trials,with only 2 failures during continuous firing of a whopping 24000 rounds of ammunition.
You wanna hear more??Fine,then know this - BSF has got 30000 Beretta MX9 Storm sub machine guns,that are now rusting in their storage because they were marred with problems.Now they have got back to their 'inferior and crude' INSAS.
Then there is beloved Tavor,how could I forget??Ask our @vk17 ,a serving COBRA officer,about his great experience with your Tavors. :D

A very informative post will request TTs to give a -rating :partay:
 
Col ( Retd ) Danvir Singh reviewing DRDO's ARDE Multi Caliber Indian Weapon System ( MCIWS) developed by ARDE that was unveiled last year in defencexpo .
10300083_1013718158673190_2986196901111485429_n.jpg

J5E4aQ2.png


Some differences from these prototypes. Like non transparent mag, fixed iron sight, straight gas block, and the barrel is further modified.
 
Last edited:
.And I ask you again,how do you know "india still cannot provide a proper [homemade] assault rifle to its armed forces till date"??How did you come to this conclusion,may I ask??I simply fail to understand,where you are pulling these arguments out from,since according to your own testimony,you have never even come close to a firearm.
And please!!Save your blind patriot nonsense for some one else!!I've been termed as a traitor multiple times,by multiple Indians, in this very forum for supporting the INSAS over foreign rifles and for criticizing the Army higher ups for their love of the same.So as I told you,save those for someone else.

And as for those so called superior rifles,a great many of them,including the Beretta ARX 160 (claimed to be the best in the world by many),IWI Galil ACE and Bren CZ repeatedly failed in Thor desert and high altitudes.............so many times that Army had to scrap the multical rifle tender altogether.But the 'ugly and crude looking inferior' Excalibur Essentially an INSAS 1B1 with full auto mode and different outer furniture) passed the trials,with only 2 failures during continuous firing of a whopping 24000 rounds of ammunition.
You wanna hear more??Fine,then know this - BSF has got 30000 Beretta MX9 Storm sub machine guns,that are now rusting in their storage because they were marred with problems.Now they have got back to their 'inferior and crude' INSAS.
Then there is beloved Tavor,how could I forget??Ask our @vk17 ,a serving COBRA officer,about his great experience with your Tavors. :D


"Even today, soldiers guarding the frontline on Siachen Glacier keep a loaded AK 47 next to the personal issue INSAS because there is no guarantee that the latter would not jam at the critical fleeting moment. Since we failed to indigenously produce a state-of-the-art assault rifle and other small arms, even the PMF, CAPF (BSF, CRPF, ITBP), SPG and even special unit Greyhounds resorted to imports. The Army Special Forces and parachute units imported 5.56mm Tavor assault rifles and similarly the MARCOS and Garud too went in for imported small arms".
From someone who must have came close to a firearm
Lt. General P.C. Katoch
Former Director General of Information Systems, Indian Army
CRPF wants defective INSAS rifles replaced : India, News - India Today
And i won't go write essay's about what obvious fact is out there.

If you have read carefully, am not the supporter of importing foreign rifles but the fact that we could not produce one comparative to them. Good if 1B1 passed the tests, lets see how they perform. No doubt after all this mess about assault rifle something have changed.

And how would you ask those infantry men who lost their lives because of inferior guns they were given during Kargil.


Sometimes patriotism does blind you. :D
 
Last edited:
.



Good question but again I have to rely on guess work here cause I haven't fired the JVPC (or the LMG version of INSAS,but it's quite identical to the assault rifle version from what I've heard).
Ok,now lets get to it,shall we??
For starters,there could be more than one reasons and factors involved behind this apparent high muzzle rise of the JVPC (formerly known as MSMC).
First,I do not know about its gas system,so that would be a problem.But by its looks,the gas system seems to be a long stroke piston and if that is indeed the case,then this can explain your question.Now a long stroke piston is heavy and as you know,it moves back and forth with every cycle,to move the bolt carrier assembly.What it means is that,you have got a heavy chunk of metal moving constantly back and forth,there by shifting the center of gravity of the gun,which in turn make it unstable and make the muzzle to rise up - pure law of physics.
Now the INSAS LMG has got the same internal operating system,but it's also more balanced due to its heavier weight.So the naturally the muzzle rise is significantly lower - again,pure law of physics.

Secondly,the INSAS LMG is of a conventional design.So most of its systems,including the bolt carrier assembly,is place ahead of the pistol grip and the center of gravity is towards the front - this also makes it a more balanced weapon,which limits its muzzle rise and that in turn contributes in giving it more stability during long bursts.
But as the MSMC is of a semi bullpup design,its systems are placed behind the pistol grip and the center of gravity is towards its rear.Which means,there is nothing in MSMC to counter balance the muzzle rise.

And thirdly,the ammo used in JVPC is much more powerful compared to the 9mm parabellum used in most firearms of its class.So that contributes to its apparent high recoil as well.

But these are all my assumptions,simply because I haven't fired it personally.I would say,you would be better off to ask @OrionHunter ,he used to be a high ranking infantry officer and definitely has got much much more info and experience in this subject compared to someone like me.



Yes,I have.But this is kinda wrong assumption if you ask me.Because only those who go all the way up to level C,gets to fire the INSAS. Our @Mike_Brando also happens to be an NCC cadet but didn't finish thecourse and could not get his hands on INSAS.Ain't it so Mikhail?? :D



Yes,I can.Although I've never personally fired the AKM,but I've heard and seen enough of it to be able to get a fair idea about its characteristics.
About the comparisons,lets rate these two in respect to some reference points

1.Operation: AKM - Long stroke piston,rotating bolt.
INSAS - same as above.


2.Weight - AKM is sigficantly lighter than INSAS.

3.Overall length - Again.AKM is ahead due to its shorter overall length,hence more maneuverable in tight spots.

4.Firepower - AKM has got full automatic mode of operation where as INSAS 1B1 has only burst fire mode.So in close quarters,AKM is ahead.

5.Accuracy - In this case,INSAS wins hands down.I have seen my batch mates achieving sum MOA accuracy at 100 meter distance,that they could constantly put bullets in 1 cm grouping,which is basically impossible with AKM.The best AKs can achieve 4-5 MOA at 100 meters,which would be considered sub par in most armies.All this happens due to the sloppy tolerances of AKM,the developers intentionally sacrificed its accuracy for ultimate reliability..........that when ever you pull the trigger,your AK will go boom,now where it will actually hit is a million dollar question in itself.

Watch this following video,especially from 6.50 minute onward to know what I'm saying


6.Range - INSAS has got a an effective range of more than 450 yards without any assault scope (upto 550-600 yards with an assault scope).But with AKM,it is basically very hard to hit a man size target at more than 200 meter distance,because the M43 ammo drops way too faster and its sights are just not made for precise shooting.

7.Bullet trajectory - Again INSAS takes the cake here.The 5.56 NATO has got the flattest trajectory among the small arms bullets,where as the M43 is one of the worse in this regard,it has got more of a parabolic trajectory,the bullets just drop way too faster and earlier due to their heavier weight,slow muzzle velocity (about 700 meter/sec) and its very poor ballistic coefficient.
What it means is that,with INSAS (and any other firearm chambered for 5.56 NATO) a shooter can reliably engage targets at much longer distances,without having to compensate too much for the bullet drop and lose sight of the target.

8.Sights - Again INSAS,hands down.In fact it would be an out right insult for INSAS to be compared with AK in this regard.The AK has got the worst possible sight among assault rifles - a rudimentary open V sight,with nonexistent sight radius and the rear sight being a good 10'" away from the shooter's eye!!Then,the sights can not zeroed in without using specialized tools.Basically,the original sights are just crap.
On the other hand,INSAS sight is basically the same as that of the M16s,totally optimized for long distance precision and best of all,the sights can be manually zeroed in,by turning the elevation and windage knobs, without using any specialized tools.

9.Ergonomics - Again INSAS. Its firing selector and charging handle are much more easily accessible compared to that on the AK.

10. Modularity - Again INSAS. Although being far from ideal,the INSAS has got a rail,which can be used to mount OFB produced optics.Or one could use it to mount a picatinny rail adapter and then use it to mount optics from international market.

11.Balance - INSAS is much more balanced than AK.You already have seen the video of the LMG,so I don't think it needs any further explanation.

12.Reliability - Well,I don't really have to spell it out which one is more reliable.


So as you can see,both has got their pros and cons.It depends on the situation,the terrain and type of enemy you are expected to face etc.
For example,if your area of operation happens to be a dense jungle,where you are not supposed to engage your enemy beyond 40 yards,AK would be your perfect choice.
But if you are to engage your enemy in an open terrain,where there is good visibility and your line of sight is not obstructed by trees or other objects,INSAS would be your choice because you want to kill or incapacitate your enemy before he can do the same to you.
So that's it.Now if you have any trouble understanding anything or you have to ask something on this topic,feel free to ask.
.



And I ask you again,how do you know "india still cannot provide a proper [homemade] assault rifle to its armed forces till date"??How did you come to this conclusion,may I ask??I simply fail to understand,where you are pulling these arguments out from,since according to your own testimony,you have never even come close to a firearm.
And please!!Save your blind patriot nonsense for some one else!!I've been termed as a traitor multiple times,by multiple Indians, in this very forum for supporting the INSAS over foreign rifles and for criticizing the Army higher ups for their love of the same.So as I told you,save those for someone else.

And as for those so called superior rifles,a great many of them,including the Beretta ARX 160 (claimed to be the best in the world by many),IWI Galil ACE and Bren CZ repeatedly failed in Thor desert and high altitudes.............so many times that Army had to scrap the multical rifle tender altogether.But the 'ugly and crude looking inferior' Excalibur Essentially an INSAS 1B1 with full auto mode and different outer furniture) passed the trials,with only 2 failures during continuous firing of a whopping 24000 rounds of ammunition.
You wanna hear more??Fine,then know this - BSF has got 30000 Beretta MX9 Storm sub machine guns,that are now rusting in their storage because they were marred with problems.Now they have got back to their 'inferior and crude' INSAS.
Then there is beloved Tavor,how could I forget??Ask our @vk17 ,a serving COBRA officer,about his great experience with your Tavors. :D


I have fired almost all the small arms fire systems used by armed forces of India.What you said about INSAS is true. Actually users dont want to know about science but efficiency and reliability of the weapon. INSAS is technologically a better weapon than AKs but its manufacturing is a complete mess. I have seen every moving part of it damaged during firing one or another time but non of AK during my sufficient long career albeit a long time ago . A weapon , no matter how it is good and accurate, if it tend to break down during an encounter, then you can easily imagine the situation of a soldier at that time. He will never pick that weapon again if survive. theke me banane walo ne bahut maal khaya hai. aur iske unhe do fayde hue. Ek to INSAS ki manufacturing me paese banaye aur INSAS band hone se ham aur import karenge aur we hee fir se maal banayenge.
 
Last edited:
I have fired almost all the small arms fire systems used by armed forces of India.What you said about INSAS is true. Actually users dont want to know about science but efficiency and reliability of the weapon. INSAS is technologically a better weapon than AKs but its manufacturing is a complete mess. I have seen every moving part of it damaged during firing one or another time but non of AK during my sufficient long career albeit a long time ago . A weapon , no matter how it is good and accurate, if it tend to break down during an encounter, then you can easily imagine the situation of a soldier at that time. He will never pick that weapon again if survive. theke me banane walo ne bahut maal khaya hai. aur iske unhe do fayde hue. Ek to INSAS ki manufacturing me paese banaye aur INSAS band hone se ham aur import karenge aur we hee fir se maal banayenge.

Well,my experience has been better in that regard,never had to suffer from bolt carrier breakage or double feed but jammed a few times,which was nothing serious and could be cleared with a little clogging and increasing the cyclic rate by turning up the gas regulator knob.But yes,the production quality of OFB has been shoddy at best and crap at worst.In fact,there have been times,when entire batches had been sent to PXE without chrome plating the barrels and had to be returned back!!
Heck,OFB started to use auto cad may be just 5-6 years ago!!
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about man??Every rifle,ba it a SCAR or M16,you need to pull the charging handle

don't have to do it after every time of reloading.
watch the following videos and you can see the difference
reloading in AR-15.. watch from 1:39.

for AK.. watch this video from 1:27
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom