- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
@Mark Antony, You seems to not get the points clearly or don`t seems to understand them well, I suggest read again for better understanding, Almost all of your 5 point raised in other posts are not valid ..
@sasum, Read all the INSAS threads, All that you raised were broken before many times ..
@sasum, Read all the INSAS threads, All that you raised were broken before many times ..
Ah well the questions were rhetorical in nature, and i already knew the answers. Just wanted to point out the inadequacy of the INSAS system, which didnt attract the attention of any armies beyond few countries in the Indian influence zone of SAARC. Heck Galil alone was in use by over 40 countries. When you create something awesome, everyone wants to buy it, which helps in bringing the per unit cost down for your own forces, economy of scale. But INSAS aint exactly charming the world is it? Anyways you seem too sold to the idea of INSAS and its family of weapons and I am dead against it. So lets politely agree to disagree. Good bantering though. I am already liking this forum
Very logical points raised by you and let me respond to them.
1. The issue with INSAS is vis-a-vis 5.56 NATO is not about the round itself but the rifle, hell even Tavor, HK 416, Steyr AUG etc. all fire 5.56 but do not hear too many complaints about them do we? An 18 Inch poorly designed 4.5 KG+ rifle is simply too unwieldy too fire just a intermediate 5.56 round. It kinda reminds me of the too much dynamite but too little fuse joke, wonder if uve ever heard it.
2. M16 sure was a failure but that rifle evolved so much, its now on series M16A4 which is currently in use by US Marines and besides it still has a standard 20 inch barrel. How many upgrades has the INSAS had since the 90s except the black furniture change. Dont think we can call Excalibur and upgarde coz thats a 16 inch separate rifle altogether.
3. Regarding 7.62 Vs 5.56, that debate has been on since forever, and especially fueled coz the sheer inadequacies of the M4 in Afghanistan which is a large calier battlefield. Youd be surprised to know , that the biggest killer of US and allied troops in Afghanistan is not 7.62x39 but rather the ancient 7.62x54R. Solution has been then have two cartridge variants of the same rifle, eg. FN SCAR H and SCAR L, HK 416 and 417, or an AR 10 for that matter. Did we ever have an INSAS 7.62 or even hear of it for different theates of war?
Another solution to have middle ground cartridges like 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. We never heard of INSAS being chambered in such experimental rounds did we?
4. Staying with Ammo, when ur faced with challenges, and inadequacies of ur rifle, u experiment with your ammo to atleast make it more effective, so u have deep penetrating rounds like the M855 and the steel core M855A1, for M16 and M4s. To compensate for their lack of punch and stopping power. Any such modifications or Ammo evolution for the INSAS?
5. Finally you make my own case, in the last part of your answer, INSAS is a badly designed and unwieldy weapon with no clear role and objective designated for it. And as you say it happened coz of little involvement of forces who were going to actually use it. So India should get back to design board and start afresh learn from the experiences of the past 20-30 years, and projected threats and challenges of next 20-30 and create a platform we can be proud of, and can also be a great export proposition as well, giving a boost to our arms industry. Till thats done adopt a weapon which is best suited for current and short term challenges whether foreign made or indigenous. As far as armed forces requirements go we should be origin agnostic.
INSAS is definitely not a platform for the future, nor for the present. hell it weighs more than 4.5 Kgs, while a full 20 inch barrel M16 still weighs less than 4 Kgs when fully loaded, and its almost a 60 yr old design now.
Time to reboot, reset and redesign.
Very logical points raised by you and let me respond to them.
1. The issue with INSAS is vis-a-vis 5.56 NATO is not about the round itself but the rifle, hell even Tavor, HK 416, Steyr AUG etc. all fire 5.56 but do not hear too many complaints about them do we? An 18 Inch poorly designed 4.5 KG+ rifle is simply too unwieldy too fire just a intermediate 5.56 round. It kinda reminds me of the too much dynamite but too little fuse joke, wonder if uve ever heard it.
2. M16 sure was a failure but that rifle evolved so much, its now on series M16A4 which is currently in use by US Marines and besides it still has a standard 20 inch barrel. How many upgrades has the INSAS had since the 90s except the black furniture change. Dont think we can call Excalibur and upgarde coz thats a 16 inch separate rifle altogether.
3. Regarding 7.62 Vs 5.56, that debate has been on since forever, and especially fueled coz the sheer inadequacies of the M4 in Afghanistan which is a large calier battlefield. Youd be surprised to know , that the biggest killer of US and allied troops in Afghanistan is not 7.62x39 but rather the ancient 7.62x54R. Solution has been then have two cartridge variants of the same rifle, eg. FN SCAR H and SCAR L, HK 416 and 417, or an AR 10 for that matter. Did we ever have an INSAS 7.62 or even hear of it for different theates of war?
Another solution to have middle ground cartridges like 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. We never heard of INSAS being chambered in such experimental rounds did we?
4. Staying with Ammo, when ur faced with challenges, and inadequacies of ur rifle, u experiment with your ammo to atleast make it more effective, so u have deep penetrating rounds like the M855 and the steel core M855A1, for M16 and M4s. To compensate for their lack of punch and stopping power. Any such modifications or Ammo evolution for the INSAS?
5. Finally you make my own case, in the last part of your answer, INSAS is a badly designed and unwieldy weapon with no clear role and objective designated for it. And as you say it happened coz of little involvement of forces who were going to actually use it. So India should get back to design board and start afresh learn from the experiences of the past 20-30 years, and projected threats and challenges of next 20-30 and create a platform we can be proud of, and can also be a great export proposition as well, giving a boost to our arms industry. Till thats done adopt a weapon which is best suited for current and short term challenges whether foreign made or indigenous. As far as armed forces requirements go we should be origin agnostic.
INSAS is definitely not a platform for the future, nor for the present. hell it weighs more than 4.5 Kgs, while a full 20 inch barrel M16 still weighs less than 4 Kgs when fully loaded, and its almost a 60 yr old design now.
Time to reboot, reset and redesign.
In 1999, we fought a three-month-long undeclared war with Pakistan. It was also the combat debut of India’s new Insas battle rifle.
During the conflict—waged over the disputed and mountainous Kargil district in the province of Kashmir—the Indian troops’ rifles jammed, and their cheap, 20-round plastic magazines cracked in the cold weather.
To make a terrible weapon worse, the Insas had a habit of spraying oil directly onto the handler’s face and eyes.
Designed to shoot in semi-automatic and three-round burst modes, some soldiers would pull the trigger, and the gun would unexpectedly spray rounds like a fully automatic.
Soldiers also preferred the heavier 7.62-millimeter rounds in the FAL rifle, which the Insas and its 5.56-millimeter rounds replaced.
Then in 2005, Maoist rebels attacked a Nepalese army base. The Nepalese troops had Insas rifles bought from India. During the 10-hour-long battle, the rifles overheated and stopped working. The Maoists overran the base and killed 43 soldiers.
“Maybe the weapons we were using were not designed for a long fight,” Nepalese army Brig. Gen. Deepak Gurung said after the battle. “They malfunctioned".
In November, Central Reserve Police—which uses the rifle—finally had enough. The CRPF is a counter-insurgency force tasked with fighting Maoist in several eastern states.
“We have sent a proposal to the government that all Insas rifles with the force be replaced by AK rifles,” CRPF general director Dilip Trivedi told theTimes of India. “The Insas has a problem of jamming. Compared to AK and X-95 guns, Insas fails far more frequently.”
Another CRPF soldier alleged New Delhi chose to “lose the lives of our jawans to promote a faulty indigenous gun,” he said.
The Insas make up almost half of the CRPF’s arsenal. That’s become an acute problem as Prime Minister Narendra Modi push the counter-insurgents to crack down hard on the Naxalites.
As part of this offensive, the CRPF is relying more on heavier weapons such as mortars and grenade launchers. At the same time, the Maoists are building bigger bombs to use against the CRPF’s armored, “mine-protected” vehicles.
But there’s larger reasons why the Insas is such an awful gun.
To be sure, India had practical needs for a new weapon. Well into the 1990s, the Army and para-military relied on a mix of old, 1950s-era FALs, Lee-Enfields — first developed in the 1890s — and Russian-made AK-type rifles.
The Insas turned into a hybrid, combining features of both the FAL and the AK-47. But the result was an awkward weapon—and one prone to failure.
A few years ago, a pseudonymous Indian gun blogger inspected several of the rifles.
There’s lots of redundant parts and features that seem to serve no purpose except to make the rifle more complicated and expensive to produce. Its plastic hand guard is wobbly. The gas cylinder—which powers the reloading mechanism—is prone to breaking.
The Insas is also “several times” more expensive than an AK, according to a 2012 report in The Hindu.
In addition to the plastic parts, there’s “four different kinds of metal, an amalgam almost guaranteed to impair their functioning in the extreme [mountainous] climates of Siachen and Rajasthan,” the paper added.
Nilkamal Plastics—the Indian plastic furniture giant—produces the crack-prone magazines.
“In the end it shoots fairly accurately and with reasonable reliability,” the gun blogger wrote. “But it’s plagued by shitty quality and needless refinements of dubious value.”
After the poor performance in the Kargil War, the Indian Army fixed some of the rifle’s flaws—such as the problem with the spraying oil. But the rifle still sucks.
Last year, the Army tested the Israeli Galil ACE, the American CM-901 Modular Carbine and the Italian ARX-160 rifles as a potential replacements. But it’ll still take years to swap out the Insas. And that’s a big if.
But remember what the counter-insurgency troops said. India could always buy more AKs.
I would like to know about Trichy Assault Rifles. It created some buzz...stated to be better than AK-47.
Last edited:
