Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by Kunal Biswas, Feb 4, 2014.
Can someone please get the pictures of the bolt assembly of this rifle?
My observations on the MCIWS:
1> Front and rear flip up iron sights. So it seems that IA is now serious about optics on regular issue infantry AR
2> This reflex sight seem to be the same one mounted on the Milap/MSMC. Is this a Meprolight?
3> P-rails finally on 3, 6, 9 & 12 o'clock. Maybe the 12 o'clock rail should have been longer so that a 2/4x magnifier could be attached to the reflex sight?
4> M16 type cocking handle. Ambidextrous, but every time one reloads a mag, the weapon would have to be dismounted from the shoulder to operate it. Also, forward assist is missing. What happens in case of a soft let down of the bolt?
5> Basic cheek rest is ok for standard issue. But in case of larger (higher profile) optics like thermal or one with a laser rangefinder, it would be hard to align sight with eye in the absence of an adjustable cheek rest
6> Telescopic butt stock. How many positions are there? I guess this is not for CQB, else would have been a foldable butt stock (CQB/PDW task delegated to the MSMC?)
7> Only 2 sling points. Maybe a third sling point on the sides would have helped?
8> Bayonet lugs are the same as INSAS 1B1
9> Looks like a good hollow and textured ergonomic pistol grip, with place for a tool kit/cleaning kit inside
10> I would say that it has a gas operated short stroke self regulated action. Doesn't seem to have any gas adjusting mechanism. Definitely a floating barrel design
11> Polymer foregrip, which could be detached by taking out the front take-down pin (12) to reveal the full 6 o'clock P-rail to mount the UBGL
12> Front take-down pin to attach polymer foregrip, UBGL, or to disassemble the upper and lower receivers
13> Closed rotating bolt action. Ejection is not ambidextrous. No forward eject
14> Mag window. More clarity to the soldier to know how many rounds still left in the mounted mag
15> AR-15 style ambidextrous mag release
16> I think they might have placed the bolt release in front of the trigger, inside the trigger cavity, to be operated by the trigger finger, like in the ARX-160. Else, the trigger could be dual action where after cocking, the first short trigger pull releases the bolt
17> Ambidextrous fire selector lever. Standard Safe/Single/Burst modes
18> Rear take-down pin to disassemble the upper and lower receivers
19> Not exactly sure what it is. Most probably just the rivet pin for the hammer. Might also be the bolt release button.
20> Not sure what this polymer piece with 2 allen head screws is for. Maybe just to take off the upper polymer cover.
The receivers are not made out of stamped sheet metal like the AK or INSAS. This looks more like made out of cast lightweight alloy. So, it would be much more expensive than the INSAS and would not be produced as quickly as the INSAS. It would be lighter than the INSAS, but not as light as a gun with a full polymer body like the ARX-160. The metal crafting seems to be immaculate and impressive.
Thanks to @sob for allowing me to edit his picture.
Not the same
MSMC uses a MARS sight.
That one is Raptor.
Hi Guys I have few questions regarding the Rifle
Regarding Point 4 and 13 the clocking for this rifle is pretty hazy the Point 4 looks more like a lever that helps to dismantle the gun just like the AK and the INSAS and there is a notch as showed on Point 13 which might help the user to clock the Rifle
I might be wrong i am just asking my doubt and its just based on what ever the little theoretical knowledge I have, any one experienced please clear this doubt and the ones who had the opportunity to see this gun in person did you ask the person in-charge and enquirer about the same.
I had a look at the close-up. Looks like this is a very well finished and solidly made rifle. The barrel is the same as that of INSAS. The gas outlet to the piston is like the AKM. The front-grip, which I believe can be used to yank off the barrel, reminds me of Steyr Aug. Overall, if they can maintain the quality in manufacturing, this will be a good export model. I won't worry about accuracy, as it is the same barrel from INSAS.
I wonder of the feasibility of tandem production from OFB and a Indian private company. After the design is fit and finished.
Let the private companies develop its own rifle and compete with the state run factories. It is not a complicate piece of machine whose research private companies cannot invest in.
They dont need to. ARDE is already designing a multi cal rifle. Even a corner shot one.
ARDE could give both OFB and a competent Indian private player the blueprints to manufacture for the I.M.
No, they don't need to, and yes, they can simply take the design from ARDE, but that should not happen. The reason is that GoI has spent money on research, and these private companies should invest their own. You could argue about royalty, but private companies will take the design, make some minor tweaks, get their own patents, make money, and leave ARDE high and dry. Let them invest in their own R&D.
Yup, that's definitely a possible consequence.
First of all If ARDE is going to give the Rifle tech / manufacturing rights to the Private Sector then they are going to sell it for the highest bidder, and also Royalty to the ARDE/DRDO which is a add on Income, if not it will become another coal gate or 2G scam. So ARDE will be watchful..... the private company who bought it will not just manufacture it but will also develop it which gives the Country a Leapfrog in the Gun Manufacturing industry and we all know how despicable the OFB's manufacturing quality was and the delivery schedule they adhered to.Having said that the The OFB has been the Lone Ranger in the Indian Arms Industry and had a monopoly in the market if at all there is any advanced gun that is entering the Indian Army It will be through collaboration with OFB example the current foreign tender after all they are simply going to manufacture it and learn nothing from it and not going to absorb any tech from it. Not just that they will not improve it due to the licensing Clause. This i am saying seeing the previous projects. the INSAS project started in the 1990's and the manufacture of the guns continues till today please gauge how much improvement was there from the day they started manufacturing the gun to the current Insas B1 (latest version) and how much did the OFB invest in the R&D to be honest I don't think they have any Credible R&D at the OFB please don't Say Kalantak was done by OFB . see the technology went in to it. Given the RED tape in the GOVT If we consider that the Govt had their hands tied up be it in Artillery project or INSAS. I do understand that they need Govt's permission to start any new project. but the Private sector can be little efficient in that in starting new projects and reduce the Red Tape. Selling the Tech to Private sector is a Thought that we all should welcome
Apropos the emboldened part, I don't know what you know, but RFI has produced record number of INSAS rifles during the Kargil War, with workers working overtime. The rifle's initial glitches were resolved, and is a good rifle now. Moreover, it is not a fashion show. As long as it does the job well, it is good.
Apropos the underlined part, yes, Kalantak was an innovation by OFB, and OFB holds a patent for the PDE. Do some research before writing whatever that comes in your mind. DFI has enough resources on INSAS. Do some reading up.
Regarding the rest of your post, private companies can develop their own designs. It is not rocket science. They cannot be served everything on a platter. Private companies have a tendency to focus on profit, not quality. By quality, I don't mean a cool looking gun, but a reliable and accurate gun. In doing so, they outsource part of the work, and thus, the resultant quality is bad. Moreover, small arms from private companies has a downside. There is a risk of them selling rifles clandestinely. Even Tata Tea was found giving money to the ULFA. Private companies can be corrupt, and we don't want small arms in large numbers with the people, without proper registration.
Let the private firms invest in larger defense systems. As of now, most of the high-tech innovation comes from government owned companies, and private companies innovate almost nothing, and go for partnerships. They will have to learn, and the best way to do this is not to get everything served in a platter. We don't need private copying firms, we need private innovative firms.
Regarding the point highlighted in RED
they did remove the Glitch in the INSAS and do you think that is a big achievement it is a achievement but for a company which is there for a long time at lease it should remove the glitch, if not then what is the point in calling itself an industry.
yes during war even the private companies will do it in peace time is what matters. I did See the documentary about the war time manufacturing spear of the OFB during KARGIL its mostly the Employees patriotism and dedication during the war than effective management. I did read and and did my research and i wish you understand what you read and not just read.
Regarding the point highlighted in ORANGE
Yes its a innovation but i never discredited it but that is not enough for today todays' technology requirement kalantak is not enough.
Regarding the point highlighted in BLUE.
private companies do look to make profit and that's where Army's RFP and RFI and the enforcing agencies comes into picture. if we go by your logic the US defense industry should rank worst in Quality however the private Players made it more better in terms of quality and the whole world knows about it.
If you cant understand my intent in this reply then there is no point discussing with you.
Remember only when there is a competition there will be a better pricing and products.
take for Example the Indian Automotive Industry of the 1980 and the 1990 and compare it with 2000 and 2014 tell me how many models of cars were there then and how many are there now it all happened after the country opened its market to the private companies and who benefits from it, its the customers. in the above case who will benefit from privatization the customers in this case the ARMY and The Republic of INDIA
made by same company and have same agent in India, who also claim to be making these in India.
I am not contending that it is a "big achievement." I am contending what you wrote (emboldened and in red, in your previous post). Read it again.
Ok, so they produced more than the daily capacity. So you admit you were wrong about "delivery schedule." Again, read what you wrote.
I am not contending whether it is "enough" or not. I am contending your statement, that is underlined. Read it again. You said "please don't Say Kalantak was done by OFB," and now you are admitting you were wrong, by giving credit. So, thank you.
I said private companies in India make almost no scientific innovation in India. I wasn't talking about the US, so no, you are not going by my logic.
I am not into mind reading. I don't know what your intent is. I only know what you have written.
Ok, and? What is your point? I said let the private companies invest in R&D and come up with their own designs and compete with the government run companies. Why should ARDE hand over its design to private companies? If private companies are so good, why do they need inputs from ARDE? Let them design a rifle and compete in the Army trials. Very simple, isn't it?
This is their R&D at work..
Delivery Schedule seriously you want me to give the examples of the number of projects where the Defense PSU came under criticism from the Army Navy and Air force its not a problem just with OFB its a problem with the entire Defense PSU. there is Ammunition shortage for 5.56 Insas and tank ammunition for example
No I am not Wrong you understood it wrong I meant was Kalantak with the experience they have with INSAS they should have done more and its not enough. so don't take credit for the same. This Achievement is similar to a Guy who has a Phd in nuclear physics But teaching in primary school.
Particularly in Defense the Orders are always the Government atlease if we consider India so its the Govt who should encourage the companies and give projects for them they should not go for high tech projects directly instead start with small ones.
the private players will invest in the R&D only if they see profit and future order at sight and they will not invest in R&D just like that so its the Govt who should encourage the Private Sector that's my point
Factually correct, but pertaining to INSAS, not quite.
I still think your original statement was a wrong statement about Kalantak, and we can agree to disagree on this point.
Correct, and I agree, private companies should be encouraged into defense innovation and manufacturing,
Separate names with a comma.