INSAS Rifle, LMG & Carbine

[Blood+]

For rifles true lethality is a function of marksmanship more than it is calibre. Targeting from the head down the centre-mass to the groin will kill every time. Hit to the central nervous system causes immediate incapacitation regardless of calibre or type of projectile!

The factors that are considered by experts are
"¢Inadequate suppressive effect (fire ignored)

"¢Unreliable terminal effectiveness (erratic yaw)

"¢Lack of barrier penetration (easily stopped or deflected)


While the 7.62 has its shortcomings (weight, recoil, suppression problems) the range and lethality of the 7.62 round is a plus point over 5.56mm.

It is claimed that the 5.56 is better than 7.62 because it has comparable lethality, less recoil and hence, better for the firer to keep the weapon steady and so more accurate., This was more so, because 5.56 has a flatter trajectory and shorter time of flight out to 700 meters. It is said that weapons chambered for 5.56 are lighter, and have better hit probability.

The tactical reason that was said when the 5.56 concept was introduced was that it was felt that it was a better combat spinoff if the enemy soldier was maimed and not killed.

By killing the enemy soldier, be it in attack or defence, it would be the end of story.

On the other hand, if the enemy soldier was maimed, be it in defence or attack, his flailing in agonising pain and howling would be demoralising to the other enemy soldiers and would reduce their resolve and thus would be a psychological force multiplier for those who fired the weapons to maim.

Then after the attack, it would require soldiers, to pick up the wounded, if they are not dead already, in the same pitiable condition, which would demoralise further, apart from reducing the bayonet strength for the counter attack; for the attacker to ward off with reduced bayonet strength the inevitable counter attack that comes after a successful capture of the objective; and for the defender, to muster up the adequate bayonet strength to counter attack the objective lost and regain it again.

Then, though the wounded are taken out of the battlefield to military hospitals by a different route than the route that is used to bring in fresh troops from the rear, yet in mountains and in some other places, this may not be feasible. Therefore, when the convoys taking out the wounded and those which are bringing in fresh reinforcements cross, the horror seeing gruesome injuries demoralises the fresh troops coming in, which reduces their fervour to fight.

That said, there is no doubt that the 'stopping power' of the 7.62 is more than that of 5.56 and that is why sniper rifles are still of the former calibre.

I fully agree with your points but I have only one doubt - don't you think that during any confrontations,the heavier M80 bullets will give the Pakistanis advantage in the maximum range compared to their Indian Army counterparts??

 

[Blood+]

And @Ray sir,please take note of this following report.
http://-----------/threads/boots-bullets-rifles-all-in-short-supply-for-army.350211/

Parliament's standing committee on Defence has revealed in a report that shortage of ammunition means "it would not be possible for the country to sustain a war for a longer period."


NEW DELHI: The army is running low on ammunition, soldiers posted to freezing places like Siachen and Leh don't have boots or mosquito nets, and India has failed for over a decade to produce an assault rifle that meets the most basic requirements of the army.

These are some of the troubling highlights revealed by Parliament's standing committee on Defence, headed by the BJP's Major General BC Khanduri. The panel has 33 members from both houses of Parliament.

Based on information supplied by the Ministry of Defence, the committee has assessed the preparedness of the army in the winter session of Parliament which ends today.

The committee, in a report submitted to Parliament, has found that soldiers in high-altitude areas are short of nearly 2 lakh pairs of ankle leather boots; more than 13 lakh canvas boots are needed in the same areas, one lakh mosquito nets are wanted, and soldiers are waiting for 65,000 Balaclavas or masks to keep their faces warm.

The committee says the Defence Ministry has failed to furnish plausible information about how many soldiers have bullet-proof jackets; the members believe that "an important life saving device has not been purchased by the Ministry jeopardizing the lives of thousands of soldiers."

The committee has voiced its concern over the fact that while the Defence Ministry seems satisfied that equipment like night vision goggles are plentiful, the army has "an altogether different view." The report offers this indictment - "it appears that the Ministry is not taking the Army into confidence while doing its perspective planning."

The report warns clearly that the shortage of ammunition means "it would not be possible for the country to sustain a war for a longer period."

The committee states that the Defence Research and Development Organization or DRDO, tasked with developing technology for the military, has failed since 1982 to produce an acceptable INSAS rifle, the standard weapon of the army .

"The Committee finds it shocking that even years of expertise has not evolved DRDO to develop world class basic product like a rifle," its report says.


According to this report,the INSAS rifles are still marred by a multitude of issues,although these are not properly explained here.But if it's really that bad a rifle,then why did the army induct them in the first place??They could have carried on with their SLRs till the INSAS was brought up to a more satisfactory level??

 

[cobra commando]

 

[sydsnyper]

:: Bharat-Rakshak.com - Indian Military News Headlines ::

This is a news article on Bharat Rakshak from Dec 23 2014, which speaks about a parliamentary committee's finding of a lack of basic facilities for our soldiers. They have admonished the DRDO on the INSAS and I find that quite surprising because the rifle has been improved to accommodate the shortcomings from the Kargil days.

The committee states that the Defence Research and Development Organization or DRDO, tasked with developing technology for the military, has failed since 1982 to produce an acceptable INSAS rifle, the standard weapon of the army .

"The Committee finds it shocking that even years of expertise has not evolved DRDO to develop world class basic product like a rifle," its report says.

Either they are right or our assessment in this thread is.

 

[Ray]

After the ARDE trails of the AKM (Russian: Автомат Калашникова Модернизированный; Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizirovanniy or "Kalashnikov modernized automatic rifle"), the INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) was devised.

It system was to include the rifle, carbine and the LMG.

Carbines and the LMG are iffy.

I presume they are meaning that the INSAS i.e. the system as a whole has not been to the acceptable standards as visualised.

 

[Ky Loung]

While the 7.62 has its shortcomings (weight, recoil, suppression problems) the range and lethality of the 7.62 round is a plus point over 5.56mm.

If this is between 7.62x39 vs 5.56x45 let me remind everyone that the Soviet viewed the 5.56 superior to the 7.62x39. Hence they created their own version called 5.45x39 and a new AK to chamber it (AK75). I'm not an AK history expert but I believe Izhmash newer AKs, most if not all of them only chamber in 5.56 or 5.45 and not the old 7.62x39.

Suppression is suppression regardless of caliber. Put a lot of bullet down range to keep the enemy from firing back.

It is claimed that the 5.56 is better than 7.62 because it has comparable lethality, less recoil and hence, better for the firer to keep the weapon steady and so more accurate., This was more so, because 5.56 has a flatter trajectory and shorter time of flight out to 700 meters. It is said that weapons chambered for 5.56 are lighter, and have better hit probability.

That is correct. 5.56 is faster and have a flatter trajectory than 7.62x39. 5.56 is lighter, smaller, and have larger case to hold more powder.

Here is a good read on M193 and M855. Both are use by the US military.
:: Ammo Oracle

Small sample of reload data on 5.56.
LoadData: 5.56 NATO / 5.56mm NATO Charge and Load Information/Data for the 5.56 NATO / 5.56mm NATO.

Small sample of reload data on 7.62x39. I don't know the load data of Russian/Soviet 7.62x39, it should be around the civilian version tho. Maybe a little bit hotter or cooler. Nothing too extreme.
7.62 x 39 Load Data - Handloads.Com

The tactical reason that was said when the 5.56 concept was introduced was that it was felt that it was a better combat spinoff if the enemy soldier was maimed and not killed.

By killing the enemy soldier, be it in attack or defence, it would be the end of story.

On the other hand, if the enemy soldier was maimed, be it in defence or attack, his flailing in agonising pain and howling would be demoralising to the other enemy soldiers and would reduce their resolve and thus would be a psychological force multiplier for those who fired the weapons to maim.

Then after the attack, it would require soldiers, to pick up the wounded, if they are not dead already, in the same pitiable condition, which would demoralise further, apart from reducing the bayonet strength for the counter attack; for the attacker to ward off with reduced bayonet strength the inevitable counter attack that comes after a successful capture of the objective; and for the defender, to muster up the adequate bayonet strength to counter attack the objective lost and regain it again.

Then, though the wounded are taken out of the battlefield to military hospitals by a different route than the route that is used to bring in fresh troops from the rear, yet in mountains and in some other places, this may not be feasible. Therefore, when the convoys taking out the wounded and those which are bringing in fresh reinforcements cross, the horror seeing gruesome injuries demoralises the fresh troops coming in, which reduces their fervour to fight.

That is absolute incorrect. I'll stress the absolute incorrect part. If it hit a vital organ it will kill the person. This goes for any calibers that is able to penetrate deep into the body and connect to a vital organ. 5.56, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 7.62x51 NATO,etc are not design to wound. It design to kill. Hitting vital organs is the key. The larger the caliber the bigger the hole right?

The main reasons why the US and Soviet went to a smaller caliber are:
1. Carry more. Standard issue ammo load is 6 magazine in vest, one in rifle. That's 30x7=210 rounds of 5.56. Most warriors carry a lot more, like over 12 magazines on patrols. Battle rifle caliber like 7.62x51 NATO is much much heavier, eyeballing it I would guess 90 rounds vs 210 rounds. 62gr (5.56) vs 180gr (7.62x51NATO) and that's just the bullet, it doesn't include casing and powder weight.

2. Recoil. You can shoot 5.56 and 5.45 all day long without any discomfort and perfect control. You can't said that for battle rifle caliber. Shooting a couple hundred rounds there might be discomfort which affect your accuracy. It also harder to control battle rifle calibers.

3. Shooter can go burst and full auto with 5.56 and 5.45. It can't be said for battle rifle calibers. The recoil on battle rifle calibers are just too great without a muzzle break to control it.

 

[Ky Loung]

And @Ray sir,please take note of this following report.
http://-----------/threads/boots-bullets-rifles-all-in-short-supply-for-army.350211/


The report warns clearly that the shortage of ammunition means "it would not be possible for the country to sustain a war for a longer period."

If the report is correct everybody at Ministry of Defence should be fire. The most troubling is ammo shortage. In Vietnam it took 100,000 rounds for 1 kill. We cut that down to 10,000 round per kill by US rifleman. However if you add light and heavy machinegun it goes backup to 50,000 rounds per kill. You need a lot of bullets to fight a prolong war.

 

[Ray]

Suppression is suppression regardless of caliber. Put a lot of bullet down range to keep the enemy from firing back.

Easier said.

In an attack, how many magazine are you to carry?

How long is the suppression effective.

Therefore firing indiscriminately does not add to suppression.

I would only draw your attention to

The most troubling is ammo shortage. In Vietnam it took 100,000 rounds for 1 kill. We cut that down to 10,000 round per kill by US rifleman. However if you add light and heavy machinegun it goes backup to 50,000 rounds per kill. You need a lot of bullets to fight a prolong war.

That is absolute incorrect. I'll stress the absolute incorrect part. If it hit a vital organ it will kill the person. This goes for any calibers that is able to penetrate deep into the body and connect to a vital organ. 5.56, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 7.62x51 NATO,etc are not design to wound. It design to kill. Hitting vital organs is the key. The larger the caliber the bigger the hole right?

The main reasons why the US and Soviet went to a smaller caliber are:
1. Carry more. Standard issue ammo load is 6 magazine in vest, one in rifle. That's 30x7=210 rounds of 5.56. Most warriors carry a lot more, like over 12 magazines on patrols. Battle rifle caliber like 7.62x51 NATO is much much heavier, eyeballing it I would guess 90 rounds vs 210 rounds. 62gr (5.56) vs 180gr (7.62x51NATO) and that's just the bullet, it doesn't include casing and powder weight.

2. Recoil. You can shoot 5.56 and 5.45 all day long without any discomfort and perfect control. You can't said that for battle rifle caliber. Shooting a couple hundred rounds there might be discomfort which affect your accuracy. It also harder to control battle rifle calibers.

3. Shooter can go burst and full auto with 5.56 and 5.45. It can't be said for battle rifle calibers. The recoil on battle rifle calibers are just too great without a muzzle break to control it.

There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity of over 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) at the target to cause fragmentation. Many complaints were reported during the Gulf War, Somalia, and in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If 5.56 mm bullets fail to upset (yaw, fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are relatively insignificant wounds.

Therefore, it is to main and not kill with the effects I mentioned.

Have you been in battle?

I have and have seen wounded in action and also those returning and reinforcement coming up. Hardly a factor that inspires if they have to cross paths.

Also why do British Field Manuals that the Indian Army follows enjoin stridently that wounded returning and reinforcements coming up are not on the same route?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I don`t believe their is shortage of 5.56mm ammo nor 9mm, Their is always enough left out and we have to finish these off by going another round at range ..

IA used to be using SS109 now OFB 64gr 5.56mm, The new round is design to kill ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[Ky Loung]

Easier said.

In an attack, how many magazine are you to carry?

How long is the suppression effective.

Therefore firing indiscriminately does not add to suppression.

I would only draw your attention to

In a military operation you are not alone. If you are then there something is seriously wrong. In a military operation you bring a lot of friends and your enemies bring a lot of his friends. Each of your friends carry something to kill your enemies and a fight can last for a long time. Basically you+friends vs. him+friends. Military combat is completely different from self defense which is most likely 1v1 and last for 2 seconds.

Either you or/and friends are tasked to suppress the enemy. In a US fireteam (3 rifleman and 1 SAW light machinegun) the person humping the SAW (5.56), his primary job is to suppress the enemy. Soviet/Russian counterpart to the SAW is the guy humping the RPK(7.62x39) or RPK74(5.45x39). SAW/RPK friends can help him with suppression. Depending on the situation you don't need a lot of bullet downrange, what is require in all cases is to make sure your enemy heads stay down. If an enemy head pop up do a burst or two to remind him. It doesn't need to be accurate it just need to be close so he notice it.

There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity of over 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) at the target to cause fragmentation. Many complaints were reported during the Gulf War, Somalia, and in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If 5.56 mm bullets fail to upset (yaw, fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are relatively insignificant wounds.

Therefore, it is to main and not kill with the effects I mentioned.

Have you been in battle?

I have and have seen wounded in action and also those returning and reinforcement coming up. Hardly a factor that inspires if they have to cross paths.

Also why do British Field Manuals that the Indian Army follows enjoin stridently that wounded returning and reinforcements coming up are not on the same route?

Here is a Navy Seal got shot 27 time by Terrorists using AK at point blank range, killed them all and walk to the medical helicopter without any help. The report is wrong about his body armor tho. US body armor is design to take 6 standard rifle round or at least 1 7.62x54R AP round.

Navy SEAL shot 27 times by Al Qaeda shares his amazing survival story | Daily Mail Online

No I have not been in battle but I've seen enough to understand one stop is bullshit. If your enemy is good for one bullet he is good for 2 or more right? In other words you never rely on one bullet to stop your enemy you keep pumping bullet into him until he stop moving regardless of caliber.

The only place you are certain to 100% incapacitation is a head shot. Even blowing out the heart the guy can have 5 more seconds to kill you before he expired.

In Somalia the US forces was fighting against a large number of people useing drugs. Even .50 bmg (anti-material rounds) couldn't bring some of them down due to the drugs they were using. They going to die after being hit by the .50 bmg they just didn't get the memo yet.

You do not need the bullet to fragment to kill. Fragmentation is design to increase the chance of getting a vital organ. Regardless of fragmentation chances are good for incapacitation if a vital organ is hit, however unless it the brain it is not guarantee 100% incapacitation.

Again keep in mind the Russian do not use 7.62x39 anymore. Their standard ammo is 5.45x39 which is a weaker version of 5.56. The Soviet viewed 5.56 superior to their 7.62x39 and it forced them to change caliber overnight.

Fragmentation range chart.
:: Ammo Oracle

 

[pmaitra]

Either you or/and friends are tasked to suppress the enemy. In a US fireteam (3 rifleman and 1 SAW light machinegun) the person humping the SAW (5.56), his primary job is to suppress the enemy. Soviet/Russian counterpart to the SAW is the guy humping the RPK(7.62x39) or RPK74(5.45x39). SAW/RPK friends can help him with suppression.

You are saying that the person humping the SAW has his Soviet counterpart in the one who is humping the RPK. That is an incorrect analogy. BTW, did you confuse RPK with PK?

In Soviet doctrine, every person, whether with AK, RPK, or PK, is a suppressor, while the artillery pummels the enemy. The Soviet doctrine is simple. Keep the enemy tied down with automatic fire, and let the mortars pound them.

Please refer: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-history/50907-war-doctrines.html#post729655

 

[Ky Loung]

No I did not get confused. NATO version of PK is the M240. Both PK (7.62x54R) and M240 (7.62x51 NATO) chamber battle rifle rounds. RPK (7.62x39) and SAW (5.56) chamber intermediate cartridge. Both RPK and SAW are use at fireteam level. M240 and PK at platoon level.

Every person with a rifle can suppress enemy regardless of caliber. Suppressing is just that, keep the enemy from firing back. Some guns do a better job then others.

 

[Redhawk]

NATO version of PK is the M240

The American and NATO equivalent, not version, of the Soviet/Russian PK/PKM series of machine guns is the M240/FN MAG series of guns.

 

[Ky Loung]

The American and NATO equivalent, not version, of the Soviet/Russian PK/PKM series of machine guns is the M240/FN MAG series of guns.

These weapons have the same purpose at their level. So yes version was the right word.

 

[Redhawk]

These weapons have the same purpose at their level. So yes version was the right word.

No, you are using the word out of context. A version must be a modified item or article from an original item or article, not the same class of item or article. A M240/FN MAG is not a modified item or article of a PK/PKM, and vice versa, though they are the same class of item or article.

 

[Ky Loung]

My context is within military formation. Notice I keep pointing out Platoon and fireteam?

For example: RPK is used by the Soviet at squad level. Soviet don't have fireteam. SAW (M249) stand for Squad Automatic Weapon. The SAW in the US military are use in Squad and Fireteam level. A US squad is made up of two fireteams. So like the Soviet 2 RPK we have 2 SAW at squad level.

 

[Ray]

In a military operation you are not alone. If you are then there something is seriously wrong. In a military operation you bring a lot of friends and your enemies bring a lot of his friends. Each of your friends carry something to kill your enemies and a fight can last for a long time. Basically you+friends vs. him+friends. Military combat is completely different from self defense which is most likely 1v1 and last for 2 seconds.

Either you or/and friends are tasked to suppress the enemy. In a US fireteam (3 rifleman and 1 SAW light machinegun) the person humping the SAW (5.56), his primary job is to suppress the enemy. Soviet/Russian counterpart to the SAW is the guy humping the RPK(7.62x39) or RPK74(5.45x39). SAW/RPK friends can help him with suppression. Depending on the situation you don't need a lot of bullet downrange, what is require in all cases is to make sure your enemy heads stay down. If an enemy head pop up do a burst or two to remind him. It doesn't need to be accurate it just need to be close so he notice it.



Here is a Navy Seal got shot 27 time by Terrorists using AK at point blank range, killed them all and walk to the medical helicopter without any help. The report is wrong about his body armor tho. US body armor is design to take 6 standard rifle round or at least 1 7.62x54R AP round.

Navy SEAL shot 27 times by Al Qaeda shares his amazing survival story | Daily Mail Online

No I have not been in battle but I've seen enough to understand one stop is bullshit. If your enemy is good for one bullet he is good for 2 or more right? In other words you never rely on one bullet to stop your enemy you keep pumping bullet into him until he stop moving regardless of caliber.

The only place you are certain to 100% incapacitation is a head shot. Even blowing out the heart the guy can have 5 more seconds to kill you before he expired.

In Somalia the US forces was fighting against a large number of people useing drugs. Even .50 bmg (anti-material rounds) couldn't bring some of them down due to the drugs they were using. They going to die after being hit by the .50 bmg they just didn't get the memo yet.

You do not need the bullet to fragment to kill. Fragmentation is design to increase the chance of getting a vital organ. Regardless of fragmentation chances are good for incapacitation if a vital organ is hit, however unless it the brain it is not guarantee 100% incapacitation.

Again keep in mind the Russian do not use 7.62x39 anymore. Their standard ammo is 5.45x39 which is a weaker version of 5.56. The Soviet viewed 5.56 superior to their 7.62x39 and it forced them to change caliber overnight.

Fragmentation range chart.
:: Ammo Oracle

One has to understand military operations is not what one sees in films, youtube etc and use that as a basis to comment if what has been said is BS or whether one is alone or in multitudes.

In any variant of attack or defence, the 'group', be it a section, platoon, company etc works in tandem, to a set plan, and yet the person is acting as one single cog in the whole action. Then it is not as if there is clear daylight for all to see each other and their positions. There is ambient light and operations of war are usually at night to capitalise on surprise, which is an essential factor. There can be fog, mist, foliage and other vision impediment factors. And more so, troops don't huddle for the sake of comfort of comrades and instead have some distance between them for the same reason that one burst of fire does not make the whole lot vulnerable or get killed or injured.

On any advancing troop the defender will, on the advancing column when it comes in range, fire. The bullet will not make any concession. That where downrange bullet deceleration will require the minimally required terminal velocity of over 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) at the target to cause fragmentation.

What you have mentioned about the LMG giving fire support and the assault group moving in to assault is the basic 'fire and move' manoeuvre. It still does not in anyway prevent the enemy in pumping you with a bullet. But again, what will matter is the required terminal velocity of over 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) at the target to cause fragmentation.

On the issue of suppression with endless automatic fire, there will come a time when the ammunition is exhausted. Therefore, what is done is firing when one sees a target (that is why one is trained to fire at pop up targets). That conserves ammunition. It has to be accurate so that it not only, to use your term, 'remind him', but by killing him, also remind his friends alongside and that is the action plus. One plays for keeps and not a reminder game, for if the enemy gets the chance, then he will 'remind' you that he is playing for keeps and not having fun.

If your enemy is good for one bullet he is good for 2 or more right? In other words you never rely on one bullet to stop your enemy you keep pumping bullet into him until he stop moving regardless of caliber.

No, you rely on one bullet and that is why you are trained on the principle 'shoot to kill' and 'not shoot and keep shooting and hope for the best'. The reason is simple. Ammunition available on man is not infinite. Replenishment is not an easy operation when on the move and in full combat. Thus, Conservation through effectiveness is the watchword.

Here is a Navy Seal got shot 27 time by Terrorists using AK at point blank range, killed them all and walk to the medical helicopter without any help. The report is wrong about his body armor tho. US body armor is design to take 6 standard rifle round or at least 1 7.62x54R AP round.

That is a plausible story. Such stories are manufactured and possibly 'required' to shore up the morale and infuse the 'go' in others to brave out and keep going. This gives away the story:

The remaining eleven shots hit his body armour, which amazingly absorbed multiple strikes despite not being designed to withstand that level of force.
After the first round, the body armour he was wearing is expected to deteriorate and fall apart.

Was his body armour made of Kryptonite that could affect Superman but not this chap?

And all the other body armour given to the other troops junk? If such was the body armour that defied its capabilities, then how come others have to die even with body armour?

On the issue of being killed if the bullet hit a vital organ, there is nothing new about it. Even a good thrashing with a blunt instrument that hits the vital organ will kill. That apart, a kidney punch can kill and that is why it is illegal in boxing.

 

[Twinblade]

After the ARDE trails of the AKM (Russian: Автомат Калашникова Модернизированный; Avtomat Kalashnikova Modernizirovanniy or "Kalashnikov modernized automatic rifle"), the INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) was devised.

It system was to include the rifle, carbine and the LMG.

Carbines and the LMG are iffy.

I presume they are meaning that the INSAS i.e. the system as a whole has not been to the acceptable standards as visualised.

@Kunal Biswas, there is a new 5.56 INSAS ammunition that has been approved but not inducted by the army. Probably higher velocity and weight than the current 64 grain ammunition in use.
http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defence/16_Defence_3.pdf

I am posting the relevant parts from the report in full.

Need for new Rifle for Army
INSAS Rifles
1.41 The media has reported that the services are not happy with this weapon
and want a better-one to counter threats, therefore, the Committee was desirous
to know the problems being faced by the forces in using the INSAS Rifle, what
DRDO has done for its improvement as well as they want to know reason of
failure of DRDO in coming upto the expectations of the forces in developing any
good Rifle. The Ministry in a written reply supplied the following information:
'(i) INSAS Rifle was designed and developed by DRDO based on
Qualitative Requirements (QRs) set in 1982 and met all QR parameters 26
and inducted into Service in 1996. The Rifle has been fully exploited since
then including OP Vijay in 1999. Subsequent to OP Vijay, the following
problems were observed:
(a) Loosening of flash eliminator
(b) Loosening of Piece guide
(c) Upper Hand Guard requirement
(d) Additional safety in firing mechanism
(e) Grenade sight requirement
(f) Improved Lever Locking Gas Cylinder
(ii) DRDO & Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) jointly took up product
improvement program based on the above feedback received from User.
Necessary improvements were carried out and introduced in the Improved
Rifle as Rifle Mark 1B1 in 2001.Later on, plastic magazine cracking
problem was reported. Earlier, the magazine were procured ex-trade. The
magazine production has now been established at Ordnance Factory Dum
Dum and problems have been resolved.'
1.42 The Ministry further stated:
'Lethality of INSAS Ammm perceived to be less. A Lethal Ammm design in
5.56 Caliber was evolved and the same was trial evaluated by user and
found acceptable by Indian Army in 2013 however, Army is yet to
introduce the same.'
1.43 On the cost of development it further stated that DRDO has developed the
INSAS weapon system at a cost of Rs.3.50 Cr. The necessary cost of
improvements was borne by OFB.
The INSAS Rifle was developed based on GSQR No. 429 in 1982 meeting
all parameters. With the change in operational environment/war scenario a
new Rifle development under Tech demo mode was envisaged. To meet
the current requirement a state-of-the-art Rifle (Multi Caliber Individual
Weapon System, (MCIWS)) development was taken up as R&D project in
2008. The prototypes have been developed and are under evaluation'.

Recommendations

Need for new Rifle for Army
INSAS Rifle Vs Assault Rifle
20. The Committee note that INSAS Rifle was designed and developed by
DRDO based on Qualitative Requirements (QRs) set in 1982 and met all QR
parameters and inducted into Service in 1996. The Rifle has been fully
exploited since then including OP Vijay in 1999. Subsequent to OP Vijay,
the problems started occurring e.g. loosening of flash eliminator, loosening
of Piece guide etc. The requirement was also felt for Upper Hand Guard,
additional safety in firing mechanism, Grenade sight requirement,
Improved Lever Locking Gas Cylinder. The Committee also note that DRDO
and Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) jointly took up product improvement
programme based on this feedback and introduced the Improved Rifle as
Rifle Mark 1B1 in 2001. Later on, plastic magazine cracking problem was
reported. Earlier, the magazines were procured ex-trade but now
production has been established at Ordnance Factory Dum Dum and
problems have been resolved.
From the information furnished, the Committee are dismayed to learn
that DRDO started working on INSAS Rifle way back in 1982 but
surprisingly it took 14 years in its development and could able to deliver
the Rifle only in 1996. But just after 3 years, the quality of rifle tested in
Operation Vijay revealed that product was not up to the mark and many
improvements were needed. The Committee find it shocking that even 53
years of expertise has not evolved DRDO to develop a world class basic
product like rifle.
21. The Committee also note that at present Army uses in-service INSAS
and AK-47 rifles in various situations, however, Indian Army is in the
process of procuring Assault Rifles through a global tender with Transfer
of Technology to Ordnance Factory Board.
Considering the track record of DRDO, the Committee recommend
that a world class product after satisfying the requirement of user i.e. Army
may be purchased out rightly for immediate use after trials are over and
services of DRDO may be utilized to get Transfer of Technology to produce
this item in the country.
22. After contemplating over the various issues involved in INSAS and
Assault Rifles, the Committee feel that either Long Term Integrated
Perspective Plan (LTIPP) and the five year Services Capital Acquisition
Plan (SCAP) is not properly designed or there is some fault with the
procurement procedures, otherwise, the problems of INSAS Rifle which
were surfaced in 1996, almost 18 years ago, a Request for Proposal for
new Rifle could be issued more than a decade later.

Btw, those suggesting imports to replace INSAS should read this.

The Indian Army began the final round of confirmatory trials in support of its requirement for 44,618 close quarter battle (CQB) 5.56 mm carbines and 33.6 million rounds of ammunition on 9 June, defence industry officials told IHS Jane's .

The Beretta ARX-160, Colt M4, and Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) Galil Ace carbines will undergo a series of tests at army establishments and weapon-testing facilities until the end of July. These include weapon sights, furniture, and ammunition trials.

The competing guns will also undergo a "mud test" to gauge their ability to operate in poor conditions, an evaluation all three failed during trials in 2012 in the Rajasthan desert and high-altitude regions.

http://www.janes.com/article/39829/indian-army-kicks-off-final-carbine-trials

All carbines under trial failed under Indian conditions.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Thanks for sharing @Twinblade, Really appreciate your effort ..

Its gud to know such goodies are yet to arrive, Will see how it fairs when inducted ..