New Assault Rifles for Indian Army

[Kunal Biswas]

Bull-pups are great, But have poor snap shooting in close quarters where traditional design is more efficient.

 

[ghost]

Why are the French,British and the Chinese abandoning their Bullpup ?

French army held a competition for new assault rifles in which HS Produkt’s VHS-2( bullpup),Swiss Arms’ SG 550 , Beretta’s ARX-160,Fabrique Nationale SCAR or the Heckler & Koch HK416 were competing .Out of which they selected hk 416 ,does that means other rifles were bad,including scar.As stated ,a bullpup rifle was also competing ,but one does not become the ultimate rifle by just being a bullpup .It has to excel and compete in various other fields.Including a Bullpup in their competition shows that they have not rejected the concept of bullpup.

Regarding British ,this is the rifle which is likely to become their new assault rifle.
SA80A3 -

Regarding chinese two major points stated by them are, they want more real state for accessories and there was problem in prone shooting.These two are design flaws of QZB not of bullpup in general.

Some of the major armies who adopted new generation of bullpup are:

Croatian army

Singaporean army

Australian army

IDF

Iraqi ERU

Yes their are excellent bullpup like travor ,F2000 and AUG but they still have problem.

I will repeat Bullpup are not perfect,they have their own set of advantages and disadvantages just like your traditional rifles.

Since the center of weight is backwards the muzzle flip is higher

I have explained in my previous post how being rear heavy is an advantage in handling the rifle, but you choose to bypass all the points(btw front heavy rifles have their own disadvantages).Regarding muzzle rise it is over stated, I have posted the gif of tavor firing in full auto versus insas in single shot,you can compare the muzzle rise for yourself.

most of the energy is transferred to shoulder that why bullpup have a thick rubber pad

It is a good thing because of the forces acting against the shoulder the rifle is easily supported and balanced. .

.Also both hands are close to each other and donot make a very stable platform.

Tavor has one of the best ergonomics among modern rifles.You have even ignored the one arm firing video I have posted.All this is based on wrong perception generated by traditionalist who look down upon anything new or different.

Bullpup are suited for some enviroments only and are best left to SF, no need to give them to common solider

Fact that it is being used by special forces speaks a lot for itself,under special forces it goes through trial by fire.Our special forces has adopted it as their standard issue ,this shows how good the platform is.Please note it is a standard issue not a special purpose weapon,it is being used from the plains of punjab to desert of rajasthan , jungles of northeast,mountains of j&k and build-up areas of kashmir.This shows its main advantage, it can easily adapt to any environment.

Please do note that bullpup do have some disadvantages just like any other rifle ,but there is no " major " flaw which a well design bullpup cannot overcome.

Even these guys don't use to like bullpup ,but their perception changed once they spent some time with them.



I have not said that bullpup are the only or the ultimate solution,all I am saying is that for 7.52x51mm I would prefer a 18 inch barrel on a shorter length rifle which can be achieved through a "well" designed bullpup.

 

[Bahamut]

I have explained in my previous post how being rear heavy is an advantage in handling the rifle, but you choose to bypass all the points(btw front heavy rifles have their own disadvantages).Regarding muzzle rise it is over stated, I have posted the gif of tavor firing in full auto versus insas in single shot,you can compare the muzzle rise for yourself.

Travor in bullpup has one of the least muzzle rise but insas is not a rifle it should be compare to .Compare to HK 416/417,AK 12/400/107,AK 545/762 or SCAR L.Plus army will most likely to for a rifle capable of firing heavy round , most bullpup assault rifle fire a light round.

You have even ignored the one arm firing video I have posted

No one will fire with a single hand in a war.

Tavor has one of the best ergonomics among modern rifles

You got my point wrong .

• Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way.
  
  This is really the biggest problem, and the one that is hardest to solve with engineering.
  
  The balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted, which is unnatural. We have a natural tendency to try to balance things between our hands, not between our hand and shoulder.
  
  The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this won't make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point; but several modern bullpups have taken the second approach).
  
  This balance will tend to make a bullpup tend to shift its butt under recoil, unless it is very tightly mounted to your shoulder; particularly during rapid fire. This tendency is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel, by the fact that the overall leverage moment of the muzzle is lower (the muzzle isn't as far from either your shoulder, or your dominant hand), and by the fact that most bullpups have straightline recoil.
  
  A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands, and there are good reasons for that. A human being naturally handles things that balance in the palm, or in front of your dominant hand, better, because we naturally want to balance things between our hands.
  
  Under recoil, the muzzle of a conventional rifle rises, but just from gravity will fall into you support hand again without actually holding or pulling it down, because the fulcrum of the lever is in your dominant hand, and the balance point is in front of the fulcrum.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.in/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html

Fact that it is being used by special forces speaks a lot for itself,under special forces it goes through trial by fire.

SF also use Laser designator , we should then give it to every one then.It require a lot of training and there are many problem.Every one I ment praise Travor for its reliabilty and power but they all said they fell unnatural using it and will prefer M4 ,that why our SF are looking for a new rifle that will most probably be a traditional one .

Please note it is a standard issue not a special purpose weapon,it is being used from the plains of punjab to desert of rajasthan , jungles of northeast,mountains of j&k and build-up areas of kashmir.

Please read this

By 2005, IMI had supplied 350–400 Tavors to India's northern Special Frontier Force (SFF). These were subsequently declared to be "operationally unsatisfactory". The required changes have since been made, and tests in Israel during 2006 went well, clearing the contracted consignment for delivery. The Tavor has now entered operational service – even as India gears up for a larger competition that could feature a 9 mm MTAR-21 version

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_Tavor#Foreign_users
Pus you must be aware of it famous accidental mag drop problem.

 

[ghost]

Travor in bullpup has one of the least muzzle rise but insas is not a rifle it should be compare to .Compare to HK 416/417,AK 12/400/107,AK 545/762 or SCAR L.Plus army will most likely to for a rifle capable of firing heavy round , most bullpup assault rifle fire a light round.

What kind of logic is that,it was you who said bullpup has a higher muzzle rise than traditional rifle .Tavor represent a bullpup and insas a traditional rifle both in 5.56x45mm.There are not a lot of 7.62x51mm bullpup rifles because they do not make a good business sense,most of the world small arm market is inclined towards ar15 and ak platform rifles ,which are widespread all across the world.

Have a look at RFB 7.62x51mm bullpup muzzle rise.

No one will fire with a single hand in a war.

LOL, never say never .BTW it was you who said that bullpup has handling problem,unstable platform,not well balanced .Firing a bullpup with single hand debunk all these points .

http://anarchangel.blogspot.in/2005/03/why-bullpups-are-persistently-bad-idea.html

First of all that article is too old 2005 ,most of the problem stated have been resolved in modern design of bullpup.

Quoting from that article :

Some of these issues can be solved, or mitigated with engineering (and most modern bullpup designs do resolve, or at least reduce, many of those issues). Also, a lot of this can be worked around with training.

Top comment

It seems to me that you have only been shooting in shooting ranges.

Beeing familiar with the FAMAS (yup) I can say that it's not the most reliable assault rifle in the world. But it's also far from the most reliable bullpup. It has many flaws that could have been in a standard assault rifle (including: 25 round mag for 3shots burst fire, near-useless and poorly designed bipod, huge handle, dangerous arming lever...) but some nice ideas (grenades don't need any attachements, for example)

Most recent bullpup rifles can switch from left to right handed without changing anything in the mechanisms (F2000, P90...)
The F2000's design prevents the gases from beeing thrown in the face. It will probably be take further soon. And i've talked to people using it: they havn't had any jam due in the forward ejection system: It has been deigned broad enough.
Weight behind the main hand is taken by the shoulder (you just have to learn exactly where to put the rifle, like any other rifles), and this makes the gun more accurate on the move: you can turn 90° and steady you aim like two seconds faster than with a standard design because there isn't any weight in the front.
Bullpups are ideal for firefights in urban areas, where most battles are taken because of the overall lenth, and switching from right/left is rather easy. And it's ideal for vehicle crews.
Reloading is a bit of a pain though, especially in cramped spaces, but people with short arms can still do it easy.

SF also use Laser designator , we should then give it to every one then.It require a lot of training and there are many problem.Every one I ment praise Travor for its reliabilty and power but they all said they fell unnatural using it and will prefer M4 ,that why our SF are looking for a new rifle that will most probably be a traditional one .

I am assuming you are talking about IR laser ,this

Yes,we should give it to every soldier and I think we will make this a standard issue on new rifles.Army is all about training.All those people who I look upto regarding small arms has consensus regarding tavor being very natural and easy to shoulder.Actually, when you are used to a particular thing for a long time you find hard to adjust to a new thing or change but after getting used to, all is good.

Our SF are not looking for a new rifle because of problem with Tavor but because of weak 5.56x45 round ,they want more powerful 7.62x51mm round.That's why new rifles chambered for 7.62x51 nato.

Please read this

No where it is stated that the problem was with bullpup design,most probably some small general problems ,which were taken care of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_Tavor#Foreign_users
Plus you must be aware of it famous accidental mag drop problem.

Right now there is no such problem,plus after spending some time with the rifle and training , the mag change is as quick as or better than most of the traditional rifles.


Read what this person has to say :
Andy Wolf, Iraq War vet, former PSD, Former Instructor, Stress Shoot Disciple

When I was in the military (airborne infantry), I was issued many,many weapons- from the venerable M14 to the M4. Upon getting out and entering the private sector, I fell in love with the Tavor. It simply addresses many issues the M4 had.

https://www.quora.com/Israel-Defens...ers-think-of-the-Tavor-rifle-IMI-Tavor-TAR-21

 

[Bahamut]

I am assuming you are talking about IR laser ,this

Yes,we should give it to every soldier and I think we will make this a standard issue on new rifles.Army is all about training.All those people who I look upto regarding small arms has consensus regarding tavor being very natural and easy to shoulder.Actually, when you are used to a particular thing for a long time you find hard to adjust to a new thing or change but after getting used to, all is good

Laser designator are use to illuminate a target in order guide weapon like cruise missile or lasser guided bombs

BTW it was you who said that bullpup has handling problem,unstable platform,not well balanced .

Have you personal operated a Bullpup or fired it ?The training time required to adjust to bullpup higher not isle for a large scale army where common troops donot posses a high level of technical skill

 

[Kunal Biswas]

One has to take in account of complete new training in every field from range firing to cleaning at field so does maintaining it and more on for years on ..

Adapting to one kind of weapon take years, As time goes their will be more suggestion for improvements ..

 

[Anirbann Datta]

Laser designator are use to illuminate a target in order guide weapon like cruise missile or lasser guided bombs

Have you personal operated a Bullpup or fired it ?The training time required to adjust to bullpup higher not isle for a large scale army where common troops donot posses a high level of technical skill

---------------------

i guess the green laser pointer for CQC or non iron sight/ attachment sight shooting, as we human are more responsive to green color than red, the other is I guess IR illuminatior/ beam pointer, for long range or no trace shooting( IR beam visible through night vison, but invisible to naked eyes).

I have not been able to check bullpup, but have fired INSAS/ 9 mm ( thanks to my fufa jee)

 

[ghost]

Laser designator are use to illuminate a target in order guide weapon like cruise missile or lasser guided bombs

Have you personal operated a Bullpup or fired it ?The training time required to adjust to bullpup higher not isle for a large scale army where common troops donot posses a high level of technical skill

I am well aware of the laser designator,since it was assault rifle we were discussing ,I assumed you meant IR laser.


I have not fired any bullpup ever,it is only theoretical knowledge,basic physics ,common sense and practical experience and observation of certain people in firearm world that my observations are based on.


Balance/stability =

The center of gravity of a bullpup rifle(near the rear) is closer to body of shooter, when compared to the center of gravity of a conventional rifle(near magazine).Hence center of gravity of shooter + rifle is lower in a bullpup design than a conventional design.

Basic science tell us that lowering the center of gravity makes it more difficult for the object to topple = better balance.

It is the the position of the center of gravity that affects stability,the more closer the center of gravity to base the more stable you are.

Hence a bullpup who's center of gravity is much closer to the body , result in lower overall center of gravity of the shooter making his stance more stable.

Bullpup = stability


General example to understand:

In our general life we are well aware of the fact that our body is more stable when we are sitting as compared to when we are standing.This is because our center of gravity is lower and much closer to our base when we our sitting.

We all are aware of the fact that longer and thinner object have smaller angel of tipping before they topple as compared to a shorter and broader object.Just hold two sticks in your hand one long and another short ,observe which one wobbles more/sooner,you will get your answer.

A scientific research was undertaken to study the biomechanical and performance implications of weapon design,where they used accelerometers ,acoustic sensors and biomechanical tracking of user stability.The result of this research confirmed Bullpup are more stable compared to conventional design.

The study had two showdowns between conventional and bullpup guns. First, the conventional Smith & Wesson M&P15T (a variant of the M4 rifle) was pitted against a FN Herstal FS2000 (which coincidentally appears in “The Hunger Games” films). Second, a conventional Ruger 10/22 rifle went up agains the bullpup configuration of the Ruger 10/22 rifle. Participants tested each of the guns in a “Vice President” combat drill that required them to fire 12 shots into three targets at a distance of 25 yards. Such a distance is roughly similar to the standard scenario for law enforcement officers engaged in firefights with “active shooter” suspects
Researchers did more than just look at the final accuracy of the participants. They also measured the stability of the gun users by having them stand on a “force plate.” They also attached accelerometers to the ends of the guns in order to track the sway of the gun barrels — a jerking movement accompanying each gunshot that means gun users must bring their gun barrel back on target for the next shot. Acoustic sensors captured the exact moment of each cartridge’s propellant charge going off and firing each bullet

In the end, the bullpup guns showed a small but significant boost in accuracy compared to the conventional guns. Similarly, the biomechanical tracking of user stability found that the bullpup guns offered better stability for their users. Reload times and overall time to complete the drills were not significantly different from a statistical standpoint.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/l...hollywoods-science-fiction-guns/#.WONAbml97IX

Muzzle flip =

Yes,as per basic science bullpup with most of the weight at rear will have higher muzzle flip when compared to a front heavy conventional rifle.But,it is well known that the main factor effecting muzzle flip is the support hand grip.In a bullpup design the muzzle being closer to the body of shooter is easier to control through support hand in comparison to a conventional rifle where the muzzle is located at further distance from the body of the shooter.

For example, think of a flowing end of a water hose,would it be more stable if you held it closer to its mouth or when you hold it a meter back.

Ejection

The location of ejection port closer to the face of shooter is one of the most common drawback associated with bullpup.This has been resolved in modern design with ambidextrous ejection port which can be moved either way,forward ejecting angle,brass deflector,forward and downward ejection port .Thus you can easily shoot a bullpup rifle without bothering with the brass ejection.


Not left hand shooter friendly =

Most of the modern design bullpup are ambidextrous,where the shooter can adjust safety,charging handle,ejection port as per his/her hand of operation.


Trigger =

Most bullpup are criticized for their trigger due to its long linkage between the trigger and the rest of the trigger and hammer mechanism.With modern design these trigger have been made significantly lighter with smooth and short pull.Tavor is often criticized for its heavier trigger which is due to the extra springs attached to it,but because of this it is more reliable than the normal trigger,this may not be good for bench shooting but does its job well in combat.


Magazine change =

Most people complain about the magazine change in a bullpup,it is mainly because most of the people are used to conventional rifle hence their muscle memory is set for a conventional magazine change ,but this can be overcome by practice.Having its weight at the rear a bullpup is easily balanced, facilitating quick magazine change with rifle pointing in a direction.
,

Bayonet =


It is common understanding that bullpup are at a disadvantage in bayonet fighting because it's too short.But take a look at the grip on a conventional rifle during a bayonet charge ,we find that rifle full length is not utilized,the rear hand is forward on the stock whereas the front hand is right at the front of the rifle to maintain the balance during bayonet thrust.Now compare this with a bullpup rifle bayonet charge and you fill find there is not much of a difference in the grip,the real estate in front is almost similar to a conventional design.In conclusion the grip position negate much of the length advantage of a conventional rifle.

It should also be noted that being rear heavy bullpup rifle is at advantage while making a strong bayonet thrust.

Let's set aside all these theories for a moment and move into the real world.When was the last big bayonet charge made in military history ? It was the british army with their L85 bullpup rifle on May 14, 2004 near a roadway 150 miles south of basra in southern iraq,where a handful of british soldiers killed 30 soldiers of mahdi army in close quarter intense fight.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10?IR=T

Closer to face =

Due to bullpup being closer to the face it can be dangerous ,in case of a catastrophic failure the explosion could be right next to your face.This problem have been overcome in the modern design of bullpup by strengthening the breech to withstand any failure.

For example in kel-tec RFB the breech isolates the shooters face from case rupture with two layers of 1.6 mm thick steel.

Training, ease of maintenance =

It is not as simple like an ak or insas rifle but then it is not too complex either .The field stripping ,cleaning,lubing and assembly is comparable to a conventional design of an ar 15 or fn scar .It include a simple mechanism of breakdown of a rifle by removing pin,removing the bolt carrier and then the bolt followed by firing pin and then placing them back together.There is nothing which cannot be learned with a bit of practice.

Indian army is a professional force which is training intensive ,in which a average jawan is well educated.So,where is the issue in adopting a new system.Army being a evolutionary force has to modernize with time ,new system will be adopted with time and so will be the new training and other protocol.This is common for all the big armies world over.As I have said earlier Army is all about training.Do you think all your roadside mechanics are highly educated,it's all about learning through practice.

Takedown and assembly of Scar H (Conventional rifle ) VS RFB ( Bullpup rifle)




Size =

The ability to incorporate a bigger barrel on a short platform is the main advantage of bullpup design.Without compromising on power and range you get a rifle that is easy to move in tight corners and cqb as well as open fields ,mountains and desert.

.

Maneuverability =

Due to its size advantage a bullpup is easily maneuverable in wide range of combat scenario.By its design it becomes a extension of your arm ,with most of its weight at rear and light front it is easy to shoulder and steer with your support hand resulting in small reaction time and being easy to point and shoot.

Fatigue =

A front heavy conventional rifle could be good for bench shooting but try to hump it on long marches in a war ,indulge in intense firefight for a extended period of time and sooner than later fatigue will creep in.A bullpup with its weight at the rear and being held closer to the body will enable you to point and maneuver the rifle for a extended period of time without any sort of fatigue creeping in.


Recoil -

In a conventional rifle due to its long length it wobble due to recoil,whereas a bullpup with its short length,being closer to body,rear heavy and straight line of recoil it is stable and recoil is much easier to control.



Why the major armies such as US and Russian army still use conventional design?

It has been a long time since the conventional design rifle was adopted for large scale military use,since then a lot of time and money has been spent on it through R&D which has helped the conventional design to improve and mature as a platform .Compared to it, not even a fraction of time and money has been spent on bullpup .The US army with its ar 15 platform and Russian with AK has spent a lot of time and money on improving these platform and help them mature,plus both of them use smaller calibre such as 5.56 and 5.45 in short barrel ,which mitigate any advantage offered by bullpup in size or recoil.However major armies such as Australian ,Israeli,British ,chinese and many more are using bullpup.



So ,why does Bullpup invite such a ridicule in general public?It is bound to happen with anything which goes against are set habits.Human psychology is set to go against anything which is against its set belief even though facts point to something else.Don't believe me ,see what was the outcome of the research:

The bullpup weapon designs were found to provide a significant advantage in accuracy and shooter stability, while subjects showed considerable preference toward the conventional weapons.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018720813509107

It is not that conventional design comes natural to us ,it is only that most of the people learn basic shooting on a conventional firearm.So,it is hard to unlearn the muscle memory and our mind is set against whatever goes against are natural belief.This result in many preconceived notion against the Bullpup.

For example if you have grown up eating food from hand you will find fork and knife uncomfortable and vice versa.But,this is not something which can't be overcome by little practise.

Such results favoring the bullpup guns in this particular case went against the expectations of the study’s participants. All of the participants had at least some prior firearms training from military or law enforcement, but some also represented more expert gun users as former or current members of the U.S. military or law enforcement agencies. (“The Marines were the best shots, amazing shots,” Stone says.) A post-study questionnaire showed that a majority of those participants favored the conventional guns in terms of comfort level — not surprising given how few U.S. military and civilian gun users have used bullpup guns. In fact, most believed they had performed better with the conventional guns before they saw the results.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/l...hollywoods-science-fiction-guns/#.WONAbml97IX



MPT-76 -conventional design

Cartridge - 7.62x51mm
barrel length - 16 inch
length - 920mm
weight -4.1 kg

RFB- Bullpup design

Cartridge - 7.62x51mm
barrel length - 18 inch
length - 660 mm
weight - 3.7 kg

A 7.62x51mm bullpup has longer barrel,shorter in length and lighter in weight .

 

[Bahamut]

I have not fired any bullpup ever

I have thank to family which is in army background, bullpup do have advantages and for Israeli army which primary fight urban warfare it makes sense but IA is also see a lot of jungle, mountain, desert and amphibious warfare it is better to go a conventional rifle as it offer more space for scope and other accessories, faster adaption by shooter and easy to maintain. Bullpup areok for SF or units which see a lot of urban combat.

So,it is hard to unlearn the muscle memory and our mind is set against whatever goes against are natural belief.This result in many preconceived notion against the Bullpup.

This means more training, you must be aware of shortage of ammo and range for training in IA, bullpup are best left to SF or urban warfare units where they give then a significant boost.

A front heavy conventional rifle could be good for bench shooting but try to hump it on long marches in a war ,indulge in intense firefight for a extended period of time and sooner than later fatigue will creep in.A bullpup with its weight at the rear and being held closer to the body will enable you to point and maneuver the rifle for a extended period of time without any sort of fatigue creeping in.

Try firing 100 rounds with bullpup in short time you will get to know the problem with heavy rear. Also you cannot tuck a bullpup between your arm and body which is useful in reducing force on shoulders during suppressive firing which is very common, trying finding the no of bullets used to kill a person in war. They are in hundreds.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Couple of things are incorrect as well as some are worth mentioning ..

A ) PARA troopers are best with small firearm as its ease in jumping and carrying them all the way with their load, Bullpups such as TAR-21 are perfect weapon due to their short size and efficiency as their barrel remain 18inch, This was the reason stated back when it was inducted ..

B ) An ordinary solider of IA in Infantry do not share same physical resemblance to those serving in other armies or those who are making those videos on utube, IA training emphasis more stamina than strength so does the food that is served in different quantity and type compare to other armies ..

C ) Bull-pups are considered before in IA, And subsequently dropped, Afaik before INSAS there were plans to induct AUG as standard firearm for infantry but dropped due various reasons, Soon after Kargil war their was section of Army advocated for bullpup design for regular infantry and 1B1 variant was turned for bull-pup but that was also dropped, The only part which remained is within PARA SF, imho rest of the PARA should also get bullpup but 1B1 ..

 

[ghost]

I have thank to family which is in army background, bullpup do have advantages and for Israeli army which primary fight urban warfare it makes sense but IA is also see a lot of jungle, mountain, desert and amphibious warfare it is better to go a conventional rifle as it offer more space for scope and other accessories, faster adaption by shooter and easy to maintain. Bullpup areok for SF or units which see a lot of urban combat.

This means more training, you must be aware of shortage of ammo and range for training in IA, bullpup are best left to SF or urban warfare units where they give then a significant boost.

Try firing 100 rounds with bullpup in short time you will get to know the problem with heavy rear. Also you cannot tuck a bullpup between your arm and body which is useful in reducing force on shoulders during suppressive firing which is very common, trying finding the no of bullets used to kill a person in war. They are in hundreds.

I have explained to you that there is no "major" reason that regular infantry cannot go in for bullpup design.

Regarding training,I don't think it's a big deal.

If terrorist and rag tag rebels can use a bullpup,I am sure even a professional army can train for it.


You can fire in full auto with bullpup without any issue.


A country may go in for a conventional design or bullpup as per their preference and a rifle that suit their need,but still there is no major reason why regular Infantry cannot use bullpup .Singapore,Australia,Israel,Britain,China,Oman are few among many country that have adopted a Bullpup design.

Regarding physique of Indian jawan there is nothing wrong in it that prohibit use of bullpup design,soldier of china,oman,singapore are similar in phsique to their Indian counterpart even British gurkha soldier use L85 rifle.

Regarding steyr AUG ,the plan to acciqure it was dropped when OFB offered to produce a indegenous design rifle .When para sf decided to go for new rifle OFB offered Insas bullpup to them but it failed in trials where Tavor was a winner,hence it did not see any daylight in service.Atleast this is what I have read, although I cannot produce the article right now to backup this claim.

I will repeat again their is no "major" issue for which a bullpup cannot be considered for Infantry.If you think otherwise I am fine with it.

 

[Bahamut]

I have explained to you that there is no "major" reason that regular infantry cannot go in for bullpup design.

Regarding training,I don't think it's a big deal.

If terrorist and rag tag rebels can use a bullpup,I am sure even a professional army can train for it

Terrorist and Rebel are a guerilla force not a conventional force, they have a huge no of volunteers but less money so they use whatever they get their hands on.

Regarding physique of Indian jawan there is nothing wrong in it that prohibit use of bullpup design,soldier of china,oman,singapore are similar in phsique to their Indian counterpart even British gurkha soldier use L85 rifle

The average Indian Soldiers are a bit taller and conventional rifle shoots wheel. I am 6 and with TAVOR, I have bit of problems aiming, imagine it with Rajput which are at average 6. 6 feet,the have problem operating bullpup. Things like average height, weight, lifting capacity, stamina all come in to place

 

[ghost]

Terrorist and Rebel are a guerilla force not a conventional force, they have a huge no of volunteers but less money so they use whatever they get their hands on.

The average Indian Soldiers are a bit taller and conventional rifle shoots wheel. I am 6 and with TAVOR, I have bit of problems aiming, imagine it with Rajput which are at average 6. 6 feet,the have problem operating bullpup. Things like average height, weight, lifting capacity, stamina all come in to place

I had mentioned terrorist because as per you it was difficult to train for a bullpup.Indian army is a professional army and it can train for any weapon system,period!

I have come across australian and british soldiers who have transitioned from SLR to bullpup (sa80 ,AUG ) ,they had no problem,on contrast they were quite happy with bullpup.

Your point regarding physical trait is base less ,the same australian soldier was tall but he didn't faced any problem.Only problem with bullpup sight is its short radius between front and rear sight in comparison with a conventional design.This is also negated with use of optics like all modern army do.

Regarding Tall people :

It is quite obvious you are negatively biased toward a bullpup platform,I am fine with either .It is only that I feel a conventional design with 18inch barrel in 7.62x51mm would be too long and I want shorter rifle.

I know whatever I say would not change your bias,I have no problem you can continue to hate bullpup.

 

[Bahamut]

I have come across australian and british soldiers who have transitioned from SLR to bullpup (sa80 ,AUG ) ,they had no problem,on contrast they were quite happy with bullpup.

French are replacing their FAMAS , Brits are in the process
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ines-swap-sa80-a2-for-colt-canada-c8-diemaco/
Plus our next rifle should be multiple caliber (have capability to be converted to bullpup if needed) and Traditional layout is easier to make and learn to use

I had mentioned terrorist because as per you it was difficult to train for a bullpup.Indian army is a professional army and it can train for any weapon system,period!

It takes about 10-15 days to know a gun completely and learn it maintenance and about a year to perfect them .Plus in traditional layout you can add adjustable check piece, change length of butt and have more space for rails .

Your point regarding physical trait is base less ,the same australian soldier was tall but he didn't faced any problem.Only problem with bullpup sight is its short radius between front and rear sight in comparison with a conventional design.This is also negated with use of optics like all modern army do.

Regarding Tall people :

It is quite obvious you are negatively biased toward a bullpup platform,I am fine with either .It is only that I feel a conventional design with 18inch barrel in 7.62x51mm would be too long and I want shorter rifle.

Ask their SF as most of the time only they are given a chance to decide which weapon the use .I my interaction with SAS both Personal ,through words or books ,they overwhelming use M4.

 

[Bahamut]

@Kunal Biswas @Bornubus
How about upgrading our AK like these
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/joe-firearms-ajak-74/#joe-lead
Or a rifle like this
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/bnti-arms-warrior-series-ar-ak/

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Radical changes, If one has to do this kind of modification ..

Better produce a new design at same cost and effort ..

 

[Cutting Edge 2]

This is a strong indication that Galil could be IA's next assault rifle

Israel Transfers Assault Rifle Technologies to India
20:16 02.05.2017
Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) has set up a joint venture with an Indian partner to manufacture small arms, including assault rifles, from this year. This is in line with the Indian government’s efforts to persuade foreign arms makers to share technology and make the products under the Make in India program.

New Delhi (Sputnik) — IWI has tied up with India's Punj Lloyd to manufacture small arms including assault rifles, such as Tavor 21 and Galil, under technology transfer arrangement. Punj Lloyd has inaugurated a plant in central India with the help of IWI and the production of small arms will begin here this year. ‎

"We have done a joint venture with IWI and we have set up a plant for manufacturing assault rifles, carbines, light machine guns and snipers in our plant. This is a joint venture with technology transfer arrangement to India," Ashok Wadhawan, President — Manufacturing Business (Defense and Aerospace) at Punj Lloyd Limited told Sputnik.

Punj Lloyd will manufacture 5.56x45mm Tavor assault rifles that can fire up to 950 rounds per minute, and X-95 short weapon with a long barrel, three-caliber weapon having 360° Picatinny rail. Apart from assault rifles, the joint venture will also manufacture semi-automatic Negev (5.56X45mm and 7.62X51mm) assault light machine gun and 7.62x51mm semi-automatic Galil sniper rifles. The Galil sniper fires up to 1,000 meters, targeting small, mobile or concealed objectives.

Punj Lloyd has set its eye on the Indian Army's plan to purchase 185,000 assault rifles with telescopic sights in future. However, the company expects the joint venture to make it big in all the procurement plans of armed forces related to small arms. "It is basically for Make in India program. Right now we are not targeting just one product line here. All the small arms products, which are needed for the armed forces, we would manufacture," Wadhawan added.

Punj Lloyd has invested approximately $52 million in defense manufacturing and has invested $4 million for this particular business. "The investment amount would keep increasing depending on the order size which we keep getting," he said.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to visit Israel this July to mark the 25th anniversary of joint diplomatic relations. Modi's visit, which will be the first-ever by an Indian Prime Minister, could yield some more defense deals between the two countries including armed Heron TP drones and Phalcon radar systems.

The Indian government signed a contract worth more than $1.6 billion with Israeli arms firm IAI. Over the last three years, India has signed 10 defense contracts with Israel, which is second only to Russia.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201705021053212157-israel-technologies-india-rifles/

 

[IndiaRising]

INSAS is a joke. Looking at the weapon makes one puke. Do a surgical strike on OFB aholes who have allowed this monstrosity to go on for so long

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The service firearm is meant for combat, It does not matter how it looks, It does not matter how it feels personally to you but what matter most it should come out of trails by user and should work at place where it must.

As i personally know these firearm in depth and used all variants of 1B1 first handed ..

======

Two reports from Janes on different timelines ..

Its a risk of issuing new design to a 3 million strong army in every ten years, It takes time to mature with firearm and firearm itself in due time ..

INSAS is a joke. Looking at the weapon makes one puke. Do a surgical strike on OFB aholes who have allowed this monstrosity to go on for so long

 

[IndiaRising]

The service firearm is meant for combat, It does not matter how it looks, It does not matter how it feels personally to you but what matter most it should come out of trails by user and should work at place where it must.

As i personally know these firearm in depth and used all variants of 1B1 first handed ..

======

Two reports from Janes on different timelines ..

Its a risk of issuing new design to a 3 million strong army in every ten years, It takes time to mature with firearm and firearm itself in due time ..

I'm not an expert on this subject so I won't be able to argue on the merits of the issue, but INSAS has been panned by most soldiers I have met. Can't GoI just mass produce tavors for Indian army? They have spent enough money on making rifles that yield little results.