DRDO Multical Rifle Unveiled

[The Fox]

Thank you :thumb:

Factually correct, but pertaining to INSAS, not quite.

I still think your original statement was a wrong statement about Kalantak, and we can agree to disagree on this point.




Correct, and I agree, private companies should be encouraged into defense innovation and manufacturing,

 

[arnabmit]

Hi Guys I have few questions regarding the Rifle
Regarding Point 4 and 13 the clocking for this rifle is pretty hazy the Point 4 looks more like a lever that helps to dismantle the gun just like the AK and the INSAS and there is a notch as showed on Point 13 which might help the user to clock the Rifle

I might be wrong i am just asking my doubt and its just based on what ever the little theoretical knowledge I have, any one experienced please clear this doubt and the ones who had the opportunity to see this gun in person did you ask the person in-charge and enquirer about the same.

4> is the charging handle without any doubt. The gun is disassembled using the front and rear take-down pins to separate the upper and lower receivers. (12) and (18)
13> This is the ejection port without a charging handle. The small piece of metal you are talking about is the head and ejector of the rotating bolt.

These videos might give you an idea:

[video=youtube_share;CY8Yns-CALc]http://youtu.be/CY8Yns-CALc[/video]

[video=youtube_share;YNu1-B_VsiE]http://youtu.be/YNu1-B_VsiE[/video]

 

[Kunal Biswas]

HMT will be producing Multi-cal Rifle ..

================

INSAS 1B1 improved too is a close bolt, But eject casing at 45 degree, This rifle will be doing the same, The sign for this is chewed up casings ..

It goes for every AR, You shoot 30 rnds it will get hot it simple physics, If you shoot 60 rnds non stop it will get red hot, If you keep shooting any AR to 120rnds non stop it will glow cheery red and will bend the rifle barrel, INSAS barrel getting hot is not an defect its same for many others also , Heavy barrel lead to heaver wight, Its a no no ..

Read this thread, You will admire INSAS > http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/52449-german-army-reported-problems-g36-rifle.html

I wonder of the feasibility of tandem production from OFB and a Indian private company. After the design is fit and finished.

Hi Guys I have few questions regarding the Rifle
Regarding Point 4 and 13 the clocking for this rifle is pretty hazy the Point 4 looks more like a lever that helps to dismantle the gun just like the AK and the INSAS and there is a notch as showed on Point 13 which might help the user to clock the Rifle

@Kunal Biswas once said that if you put the INSAS in full auto and fire 30 round the barrel gets heated up is that defect still exist in the later variants as well if that is the case then it is passed on to the new gun as well or will a gun with a heavier barrel will it be capable of firing more rounds in full auto mode

Can someone enlighten me about it

 

[Archer]

@arnabmit, can you compare the design to the HK-416 and point out features/similarities/differences.

Thanks

 

[arnabmit]

At this point there is very less detailed information to make a detailed comparison.

What I can say from the apparent features are this:

1> Both are based on the AR-15 design philosophy
2> Both use the short stroke gas piston operation, which is way more cleaner and more efficient than the direct gas impingement system of the M16
3> The MCIWS is multical, which means just by changing the barrel and the bolt assembly, you can get a new weapon. HK-416 only has 5.56 capability where you need the HK-417 to fire 7.62
4> 416-A5 has a gas regulator which enables it to be used with a suppressor. We have no idea yet if there is a gas regulator in the MCIWS. In fact it looks like it has a auto regulating gas piston. Anyway, since the MCIWS is an AR and not a carbine, there is no use of a suppressor for it. CQB/PDW roles would be delegated to the MSMC which can be used with a suppressor.
5> The 12 o'clock P-Rail on the MCIWS is not full length like the HK-416, so mounting multiple optics would be an issue (like reflex+magnifier). Then again such situation arises with SF who uses the TAR-21 anyway. MCIWS is an infantry issue AR which would not need multiple optics.
6> I did not see any bolt release or forward assist on the MCIWS (which doesn't mean it is not there), whereas the same on the 416-A5 is pretty ergonomical and ambidextrous.
7> One of the biggest USP of the HK-416 is it's "fire under any condition" (dirt/water/mud/sand). We would have to wait for trials to know where the MCIWS stands.
8> A proprietary feature of the 416 is its burst mode trigger group, where out of a 3 round burst group, if you fire only 1 or 2 rounds with a short trigger pull, on the next trigger pull, instead of firing just the remaining rounds of the earlier burst group, it resets the counting cam and fires a complete burst of 3 rounds. We do not know if such a feature is incorporated in the MCIWS.
9> Both does not have ambidextrous brass ejection, but the 416 has forward ejection (not to be confused with the F2000 type forward ejection channel) which the MCIWS does not. So a hunched up left handed shooter might have hot brass ejecting on his body, or on his buddy next to him.
10> The 416-A5 weighs between 3.5-3.9kg depending on the barrel length. We do not know the weight of the MCIWS.

@arnabmit, can you compare the design to the HK-416 and point out features/similarities/differences.

Thanks

 

[sayareakd]

hope this come with

hope they will use cheek butt guard so that eyes are in line with red dot and the target.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Sir, I dont think such butt stock are in need, As the butt is an AR-15 influenced, It can accept cheaper yet effective cheek raiser ..

hope this come with

hope they will use cheek butt guard so that eyes are in line with red dot and the target.

 

[The Fox]

The Weight is 3 Kg and clocking is like M4 and here is the video
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1bij7p_arde-s-new-multi-calibre-rifle_tech?start=12

At this point there is very less detailed information to make a detailed comparison.

What I can say from the apparent features are this:

1> Both are based on the AR-15 design philosophy
2> Both use the short stroke gas piston operation, which is way more cleaner and more efficient than the direct gas impingement system of the M16
3> The MCIWS is multical, which means just by changing the barrel and the bolt assembly, you can get a new weapon. HK-416 only has 5.56 capability where you need the HK-417 to fire 7.62
4> 416-A5 has a gas regulator which enables it to be used with a suppressor. We have no idea yet if there is a gas regulator in the MCIWS. In fact it looks like it has a auto regulating gas piston. Anyway, since the MCIWS is an AR and not a carbine, there is no use of a suppressor for it. CQB/PDW roles would be delegated to the MSMC which can be used with a suppressor.
5> The 12 o'clock P-Rail on the MCIWS is not full length like the HK-416, so mounting multiple optics would be an issue (like reflex+magnifier). Then again such situation arises with SF who uses the TAR-21 anyway. MCIWS is an infantry issue AR which would not need multiple optics.
6> I did not see any bolt release or forward assist on the MCIWS (which doesn't mean it is not there), whereas the same on the 416-A5 is pretty ergonomical and ambidextrous.
7> One of the biggest USP of the HK-416 is it's "fire under any condition" (dirt/water/mud/sand). We would have to wait for trials to know where the MCIWS stands.
8> A proprietary feature of the 416 is its burst mode trigger group, where out of a 3 round burst group, if you fire only 1 or 2 rounds with a short trigger pull, on the next trigger pull, instead of firing just the remaining rounds of the earlier burst group, it resets the counting cam and fires a complete burst of 3 rounds. We do not know if such a feature is incorporated in the MCIWS.
9> Both does not have ambidextrous brass ejection, but the 416 has forward ejection (not to be confused with the F2000 type forward ejection channel) which the MCIWS does not. So a hunched up left handed shooter might have hot brass ejecting on his body, or on his buddy next to him.
10> The 416-A5 weighs between 3.5-3.9kg depending on the barrel length. We do not know the weight of the MCIWS.

 

[Shaitan]

Why not a rail system long enough to support more than one optic?

 

[northernarunachalpradesh]

Why not a rail system long enough to support more than one optic?

cleaning will be a problem with these kind of long rail systems. only layman observation am not an expert.

 

[arnabmit]

Sirjee, already answered in post #85 point 5.

Why not a rail system long enough to support more than one optic?

 

[Shaitan]

 

[Twinblade]

@Kunal Biswas, HMT making these rifles would be a good news indeed. I remember reading about HMT entering small arms production.
@arnabamit,

The take down pins seem to be 'pop out' captive pins like tavor, which can be 'popped out' with a simple key or even a bullet tip.

11> Polymer foregrip, which could be detached by taking out the front take-down pin (12) to reveal the full 6 o'clock P-rail to mount the UBGL

ARDE's grenade launcher uses a three point attachment, with one of the attachment points being the bayonet lug.

10> I would say that it has a gas operated short stroke self regulated action.

From the looks of it, it appears to be short stroke, we'll have to wait and watch. Wouldn't a short stroke gas exhaust singe the accessories mounted around the gas block ?

 

[pmaitra]

Why not a rail system long enough to support more than one optic?

How many optics do you want to install at a time? The rifle would be unnecessarily heavy. What I see, IMHO, is sufficient.

 

[Shaitan]

How many optics do you want to install at a time? The rifle would be unnecessarily heavy. What I see, IMHO, is sufficient.

It's purely optional feature. Probably use time to time for Indian SFs.

Practically every next gen rifle has this feature, full length railing.

 

[pmaitra]

@Shaitan, I agree, many modern weapons come with Picatinny Rails all over the place. It seems they would, given a chance, cover the entire surface of the rifle with Picatinny Rails. To me, this is a gimmick. I think what MCIWS has, is sufficient.

 

[Shaitan]

It is sufficient, but they might as well rail it up all the way like the bottom.

 

[sayareakd]

found this video it explain DRDO multi caliber rifle, good video and it is worth watching.

[video=dailymotion;x1bij7p]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1bij7p_arde-s-new-multi-calibre-rifle_tech?start=2[/video]

DRDO has made good rifle, IMHO.

 

[pmaitra]

It's the same video, posted twice before.

Upside down camera at the end.

 

[sayareakd]

It's the same video, posted twice before.

Upside down camera at the end.

ok, delete my post, no point in having duplicate post