I cannot trace the Videos , but I saw interview of IA soldiers who fought during Kargil ... They were asked which Gun will they Prefer and almost all of them Preffered AK and said it is much more reliable up-there and a life saver..(I can give you range of articles but then You will will not agree because for some reason You are just not ready to see over it)
I would Love IA to get a domestic Rifle but again NOT AT THE COST OF QUALITY ....
And now let us discuss Excalibur ,,,,, Can You please tell me how DO YOU KNOW THAT EXCALIBUR IS A BEAST (when we compare it with the other Rifles competing with it (not to mention that it is 5.56 and not a 7.62 so it automatically cannot compete with the current requirement of IA)) .. IA requirement as of now is logical ,,its just that they are pushing Gun manufactures to Produce a Great Rifle that will be less in weight , will not Jam, less recoil and kills the terrorist (I guess they also want to put a fear in Terrorists that if they get hit by a bullet from a IA Rifle then they will die instantly and it wont be like INSAS where round get through the belly and still a guy could function ,,, one bullet one terrorist ...... but this is my thinking and and not 100% sure if thats one of the reason behind asking for a 7.62 Nato Cal gun ...any ways IA Guys are fucking aggressive and that I definatly know )
If you go in market You would like to Buy the best product with the Budget You have so let their be a fair Trial and let their be no compromise on Quality ...
Do you have any videos or news item of INSAS prior to Kargil conflict? Lets have a look back at its development. Prior to Kargil, the standard issue rifle for IA was 1A1 or what we popularly know as SLR. Interestingly the ever reliable AKM had been introduced in IA by 90's only. Prior to that even the special forces were equipped with 1A1 firing 7.62 NATO.
IA had derived the inspiration to switch over to a 5.56 from what had been published in NATO bulletins regarding Vietnam war and the ongoing switch over from full power 7.62 to 5.56. The basic idea behind using 5.56 is to mime an enemy soldier in war field rather then to kill him. At that time insurgency was beginning to happen in Kashmir and no one in IA had even thought about this angle. Shortsightedness???? Never the less, lets leave it.
Now we all know that INSAS in basically based on AKM with many features from other rifles too. This was designed to be the standard issue rifle for IA. So only after introduction of AKM in India after 90, the final design for INSAS had been fixed and production started. Then came the Kargil in 1999 and a mass number of INSAS had been handed over to IA, as still in used Lee-Enfield and 1A1 had been recently phased out. So now I am not sure where you could find the amount of testing INSAS had gone through before it has been introduced directly in war. SO basically INSAS was a rifle which had directly gone to war from designers table. So as the case with M16 in Vietnam war, same had happened with INSAS in Kargil. So when a soldier compares a rifle designed in 1945 and which has a backing of 50 years of maturity time with enough war to its name, he is not wrong. But show me the logic of using the same argument to kill a new born before it matures.
I too want IA to use the best. But for any system to be best, it needs time to mature. If you have to compare INSAS, compare it with what it had been in 1999 and what it is today. There is no doubt that AKM is the best AR till date when it comes to reliability, but talk about range with reliability, AKM would become 2nd best to many others. I hope you know about the much preferred TAVOR. India had outrightly rejected the first batch. It took IAI 2 years to short out the issues and reintroduce it. From then onwards it is getting updated even today itself. But when it comes to any indigenous AR, the first thing you would listen to is how it performed in Kargil and how Nepalese Army screwed things up.
Talking about 7.62 NATO round, even now IA is not looking at it in own perspective. It is simply following the course taken by US Army. When ever comparison arises between 5.56 and 7.62, you would only listen to how US has faced difficulty in putting down the Jehadis in Iraq and Afghan war. Not even a single mention of any such news had came to light in Indian context. The last time any such thing happened is in Mumbai attack. At that time NSG were unable to down terrorists with a single round of MP9 which does make use of 9mm pistol round instead of a much powerful rifle round. Kindly enlighten me if I did missed on any news article.
Now talking about Excalibur, we had discussed it many times in numerous thread that how it had beat other AR last time on ground of reliability. Unfortunately for unknown reason the tender got scrapped and after that requirement of IA changed from 5.56 to 7.62. Lets leave this too. But when I said that I've personally seen it in use and action, it means I mean it. We had discussed it in length on related thread and many members here are well aware of it. Next time I'd make it a point to tag you along in any such discussion.
When talking about fair trial, I am all for it. But why each and every time the requirement is changed to prefer a particular vendor? If this is the case then why to loose time and money in designing and R&D. We are a trillion dollar economy, lets just have the best what money can buy. Afterall many countries who are poorer then us is doing the same. We too could do that.
