INSAS Rifle, LMG & Carbine

[Flame Thrower]

Gurus...

I have a layman's question... Please answer it patiently.

-1B1 has two modes of firings,Semi-Auto and 3-round burst,while Mk.1C has Semi-Auto and Full Auto as firing modes.
-My guess is they've changed recoil spring tension a little bit as Full Auto fire is introduced in Mk.1C.
-

Shouldn't MK1C retain the 3 round burst!?

Given that our soldiers carry 100 rounds of ammo(5*20 during peacetime)

Firing full auto eats away lots of Ammo. If I remember correctly, Americans in Vietnam war had fired almost 250,000 rounds for every kill(according to Vietnam war/M 16 documentary) and M16s had created lots of problems when soldiers tried to control the fire.

I know that we've come long way from Vietnam war. But 3 round burst sounds lot better and takes 6-7 trigger pulls(before we change the magazine) which would be higher than full auto trigger pulls.

I am a layman in firearms, please answer my questions in layman terms.

Thanks in advance.

 

[binayak95]

Gurus...

I have a layman's question... Please answer it patiently.

Shouldn't MK1C retain the 3 round burst!?

Given that our soldiers carry 100 rounds of ammo(5*20 during peacetime)

Firing full auto eats away lots of Ammo. If I remember correctly Americans in Vietnam war had fired almost 250,000 rounds for every kill(according to Vietnam war documentary) and M16s had created lots of problems when soldiers tried to control the fire.

I know that we've come long way from Vietnam war. But 3 round burst sounds lot better and takes 6-7 trigger pulls which would be higher than full auto trigger pulls.

I am a layman in firearms, please answer my questions in layman terms.

Thanks in advance.

The three round burst is a bit more complex to implement then semi auto and full auto.

the original argument was that three round burst saves ammo. But a disciplined shooter can use trigger control to fire short bursts as it is.

TRB removes the ability to put suppressive fire on the enemy position. That is there with full auto, and most soldiers fire in semi auto anyway.

Hope this answered your question.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

Gurus...

I have a layman's question... Please answer it patiently.

Shouldn't MK1C retain the 3 round burst!?

Given that our soldiers carry 100 rounds of ammo(5*20 during peacetime)

Firing full auto eats away lots of Ammo. If I remember correctly, Americans in Vietnam war had fired almost 250,000 rounds for every kill(according to Vietnam war/M 16 documentary) and M16s had created lots of problems when soldiers tried to control the fire.

I know that we've come long way from Vietnam war. But 3 round burst sounds lot better and takes 6-7 trigger pulls(before we change the magazine) which would be higher than full auto trigger pulls.

I am a layman in firearms, please answer my questions in layman terms.

Thanks in advance.

The three round burst is a bit more complex to implement then semi auto and full auto.

the original argument was that three round burst saves ammo. But a disciplined shooter can use trigger control to fire short bursts as it is.

TRB removes the ability to put suppressive fire on the enemy position. That is there with full auto, and most soldiers fire in semi auto anyway.

Hope this answered your question.

As Binayak95 mentions, 3 round burst is kind of what happens when your doctrine decides that putting in a mechanical rate limiter is cheaper than letting your soldiers develop better fire control with more range time. It makes the trigger group more complicated than it has to be. Biggest disadvantage is that the typical ratchet system doesn't reset once you let go. You fire 2 rounds and stop, next time it'll fire one round and stop. Also makes differing trigger pull weight. It's more of a hindrance for a skilled professional soldier.

 

[Kshithij]

The way I see it, it is better to use 2 class of rifles - 7.62x51 and 5.56 NATO. 5.56 is useful for suppressive fire whereas 7.62x51 is actually the killer rifle. With 7.62x51, there is no need for burst fire. And with suppressive fire, there is again no need for burst fire.

I believe that army will divide units with some people designated for suppressive fire while others for lethal combat.

In real combat, there is bound to be some barrier like wood, armour, winter clothes etc in the way of the bullet. Also, short range combats take place only in forested or urban areas with lot if barriers. 5.56x45 is pretty bad when it comes to armour or long distance. 5.56 is good only in close combat in open space or for suppressive fire due to its low weight and hence higher ammunition carry(12 gram for 5.56x45 as opposed to 25 gram for 7.62x51)

The ideal situation of close combat without barriers rarely take place. Opponents are not dumb rioters who run on the streets. So, I see MK1C as merely a suppressive fire rifle to be used in tandem with 7.62x51 rifles of the team members.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Will post it, I have the video but require editing ..

Sir you have promised a similar video of you firing in the range long back. Still waiting for you to update of you firing on the range

 

[Kunal Biswas]

5.56x45mm is design to breach bullet proof vests, Indian 5.56mm is design to kill human size target to 600ms with help of scope on the rifle, Most engagement happens within 300ms for rifleman ..

Go though the thread you will know more ..

In real combat, there is bound to be some barrier like wood, armour, winter clothes etc in the way of the bullet. Also, short range combats take place only in forested or urban areas with lot if barriers. 5.56x45 is pretty bad when it comes to armour or long distance.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

No U.S. military service rifle caliber has been more controversial than the 5.56x45mm cartridge. Since it's adoption in the 1960's, Soldiers and civilians have both circulated the myth that the 5.56 round was designed to wound the enemy and not kill them. The logic behind this claim is that wounding the enemy puts a strain on their logistical systems with the added bonus that it requires other enemy soldiers to carry off their wounded brethren thus lessening the number of combatants on the field of battle.

The only problem with this myth is that it is just that, a myth.

The U.S. military has never published any documents, requirements or doctrines stating a desire to adopt a rifle cartridge designed to only wound the enemy. Of course the military views wounding as better than no hit at all, and taking an enemy combatant out of the fight they view as a good thing. But they have never built a doctrine around the concept of wounding being the desired result of a gunshot wound.

The 5.56mm cartridge was designed to kill not wound or maim.

I believe the root of the myth comes from countless horror stories told by both civilians and Soldiers about the 5.56mm's failure to neutralize a target. In 2003 the U.S. Army conducted a study that found the 5.56mm was actually quite acceptable for combat duty. This is a quote from the study that I think carries a lot of weight.

"In the end, "footpounds of energy" is misleading, "stopping power" is a myth, and the "oneshot drop" is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection. Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat."

I agree with this statement. Shot placement will be the largest deciding factor in how effective a gun shot would will be in terms of dispatching the enemy. The horror stories about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56mm can be traced back to either unsubstantiated rumors and myths or to poor shot placement.

It's also worth noting how the 5.56mm stacked up against the .308 in the testing. For CQB type combat the 5.56mm actually kept pace with the 7.62x51(.308) in terms of close range effectiveness.

It's interesting to note that when the U.S. military adopted the .308 to replace the 30-06, similar horror stories circulated. The .308 was deemed to be inferior to the 30-06 by many Soliders. Slowly these rumors faded, and their demise was hastened with the adoption of the 5.56x45mm only a few short years later.

The 5.56mm cartridge is a fine service rifle cartridge that excels at close to medium range combat.

Source : http://militaryarms.blogspot.in/2012/10/the-poodle-killer-myth.html

================

Some old research about the topic ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The U.S. Army recently conducted one of the most extensive studies into small arms performance in CQB (Close Quarters Battle) and published their findings. This study was conducted to answer concerns that some warriors were expressing in After Action Reports (AAR) post battle about the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge.

The test team not only tested M193, M995 (AP) and M855 "Green Tip", but they also tested a number of other loads to see if there were any improvements made to the combat effectiveness of the 5.56mm round by civilian companies.

In the 5th paragraph of the report, Major David LaFontaine makes the following statement which pretty much sums up what I've been saying about caliber selection for many years.

'In the end, "footpounds of energy" is misleading, "stopping power" is a myth, and the "oneshot drop" is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection. Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat."

In the end the U.S. Army found that no commercially available alternatives in 5.56mm ammunition performed measurably better than existing issued ammo (M855, M193, M995). This study was based on CQB effectiveness, and from the ranges of 0-50 meters all ammo tested performed similarly and none stood out as being clearly superior.

Also worth mention is that during this testing the U.S. Army also tested the M80 7.62x51mm round fired from an M14 to compare it to the performance of the 5.56mm in CQB conditions. It performed in the same band of performance as the 5.56mm ammo tested. They concluded that in a CQB situation the 7.62x51mm round offered no measurable performance benefit over the 5.56mm round.

One more important note, they also concluded that "shot placement trumps all other variables". This is something I've been saying for years (and in some of my videos found on my YouTube channel). Take the weapon you can best hit the target with, then worry about what caliber it is.

Source : http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf

======================

Related to on going drama in India, These research should put to the end of the on going debate ..

 

[HarshBardhan]

INSAS Rifles lined up-Shot was heaven

 

[Johny_Baba]

This might be a stupid question, but seeing how the charging handle on the INSAS rifle doesn't reciprocate, what is the operating procedure to force close the bolt if it doesn't close fully cause of fouling or something else ? Is there any "forward assist" equivalent ?

Sorry for the late response,
Charging handle on the INSAS doesn't reciprocate,moreover to that i don't think there's any provision for "Forward Assist" on INSAS.

Though,there is a manual "Bolt Hold Open" device on INSAS,located on the trunnion of INSAS.It is a simple spring loaded plunger meant to hold bolt carrier on its position when it is pulled backwards.Just press that screw-like button while cocking the weapon.It is mainly used for inspection of chamber.

Here is the pic of bolt locked back on INSAS,provided by Kunal Dada.

 

[Brij Ray]

This gun looks very similar to insas.

 

[Vinod DX9]

INSAS 1C and Ghatak together

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

INSAS Rifles lined up-Shot was heaven

Sir, the stamped steel construction looks shoddy. Will it sustain continuous combat exposure in attrition?

 

[Kshithij]

Ak47 is made from stamped steel. I hope you know how cheap abd durable it is. Stamped steel is strong enough but just coarse and heavier

Sir, the stamped steel construction looks shoddy. Will it sustain continuous combat exposure in attrition?

 

[Twinblade]

Sir, the stamped steel construction looks shoddy. Will it sustain continuous combat exposure in attrition?Ak47 is made from stamped steel. I hope you know how cheap abd durable it is. Stamped steel is strong enough but just coarse and heavier

Also made from Stamped steel:
Original Sig 550/551 (Considered to be one of the finest rifles in the world in terms of build quality and accuracy)

 

[Johny_Baba]

Ak47 is made from stamped steel. I hope you know how cheap abd durable it is. Stamped steel is strong enough but just coarse and heavier

What you call 'AK-47' was not made of stamped steel,only 'Type-1' AK-47s were made of stamped steel during 1947-1951 in some limited amount,those are uber rare AKs.
Since then,Type-2 and Type-3 AK-47s were made of milled receiver,since Soviet Union had many manufacturing difficulties to build some quality stamped receivers in adequate amount (i.e. rejection ratio of such stamped receiver was high).
They only got enough technological advancement in 1959 to produce stamped receiver Kalashnikovs cheaply and efficiently and hence the gun that was born was "AKM" i.e. Avtomat Kalashnikova modernizirovanniy (Kalashnikov's Assault Rifle - Modernised).

Use common term 'Kalashnikov' to describe the gun,'AK-47' is a common word as well but it's wise to be more technical,since we're on a Defense Forum.

 

[Shaitan]

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

 

[Chinmoy]

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

SSB I believe............


Please enter a message with at least 30 characters.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

This is what happens when the Finns tweak the AK for their own purpose. The IWI Galil is actually a descendant of this. I would have liked the sights from these on the TAR and Ghatak.

 

[Doc Mozart]

As per rumours,MCIWS/AAR is dead,or needs more clarifications.That is why i said that.

Damn,Is this MCIWS/AAR or Schrodinger's cat ? Both Alive and Dead at same time,until someone opens the box and look inside to verify the true conditon ??

I just hope they bring it back at least for competition sake. Let there be an all out competition between the mk1c and the aar and let's choose the best.