Words of Major General Bhupendra Yadav on INSAS

[Pulkit]

The guys who head production at IOF have no idea about quality.

Look at the .32 revolver & pistol being produced by Kanpur & Cossipore, IOF respectively & compare the finish with an original Smith & Wesson or a Webley & Scott.

The work by IOF is shoddy & crude.

Without self pride in what we do, IOF will keep producing crude , half finished toys for boys. What we need is an ethos of innovation and some one from the core users to head production in IOF.

I will agree you on the POINT OF QUALITY but one can also quote projects where quality of highest standards has been maintained (Sukhoi Today).
The quality of Navy products has also been good.
So IA can not play a victim here...
DRDO is responsible for designing .PSUs are manufacturing role of IA should be Supevising not dominating and dictating or being a cry baby.
They rely on DRDO to think of fututre prospects and come up with new product and DRDO replies on them for requirement.
Here both are at fault and IA shouldnot deny taking that responsibility.

 

[indiatester]

The guys who head production at IOF have no idea about quality.

Look at the .32 revolver & pistol being produced by Kanpur & Cossipore, IOF respectively & compare the finish with an original Smith & Wesson or a Webley & Scott.

The work by IOF is shoddy & crude.

Without self pride in what we do, IOF will keep producing crude , half finished toys for boys. What we need is an ethos of innovation and some one from the core users to head production in IOF.

Do you have pictures for it?

 

[Ky Loung]

Do you have pictures for it?

S&W picture thread.
S&W Revolver Photo thread -

S&W revolver retail prices are high.. They range from $500 into the thousands depending on the model. However street price are lower than the official price.
Revolvers - Smith & Wesson

2- @Kunal jee the modification that is being suggested for INSAS like adding rail ,fore grip ,to me it looks just cosmetic to me the bigger design flaw what looks to me is using AK style thin dust cover & adding the aiming sight over it now every time the cover opened the rifles looses its zeroing ,Ak designers thoughtfully moved the aiming sight forward due to that reason only .

3- I too agree with the point that giving super expensive imported rifle to an infantry would not be so fruitful then adding good rifle scope over current rifle .

While I don't know the internal operation of the INSAS, the external is very similar to the AK. AK has very bad ergonomic in general.

Is INSAS a one piece rifle like the AK? In other words it not like an AR15 (M4, M16, etc) where there is an upper and lower that mate together to form the complete rifle? Does it use 1mm stamp sheet metal receive like the AK? The action of the AK is sound. It's one of three actions supported and develop. The other are Stone DI (M4, M16, etc) and Sullivan Piston (AR18, G36, SCAR, ACR).

If you guys going to upgrade might as well ditch the AK look because it is a dead end. Repackage the INSAS into a modernize modular body. Both Sig 556 and XCR are modernized version of the AK. Both don't look like AK but they are. Both have excellent ergonomic and smoother upgrade path because it is a modular design. I would personally get rid of the stamp receiver. Going forge will increase the price but it is worth in the long run.
Robinson Armament Co - [XCR-M]
SIG556

Good rifle scopes are very expensive. A decent AR15 cost around $600. A decent rifle scope can run over $1500 and that's the low end of decent scope. Red dot sight will cost the same price of the rifle.
Trijicon Rifle Scopes w/ FREE SHIPPING - ACOG, Accupoint and More!
Aimpoint Red Dot Sights With FREE S&H! - Aimpoint Reflex Sights, Aimpoint Red Dots, Aimpoint Red Dot Scopes & More!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

INSAS internal are very much like AKM, Where as handling is not like an AK ..

Due to the internal working of AK the receiver is like an AK, The Gas system is from FAL and sights from M16 influenced ..

While I don't know the internal operation of the INSAS, the external is very similar to the AK. AK has very bad ergonomic in general.

Is INSAS a one piece rifle like the AK? In other words it not like an AR15 (M4, M16, etc) where there is an upper and lower that mate together to form the complete rifle? Does it use 1mm stamp sheet metal receive like the AK? The action of the AK is sound. It's one of three actions supported and develop. The other are Stone DI (M4, M16, etc) and Sullivan Piston (AR18, G36, SCAR, ACR).

If you guys going to upgrade might as well ditch the AK look because it is a dead end. Repackage the INSAS into a modernize modular body. Both Sig 556 and XCR are modernized version of the AK. Both don't look like AK but they are. Both have excellent ergonomic and smoother upgrade path because it is a modular design. I would personally get rid of the stamp receiver. Going forge will increase the price but it is worth in the long run.
Robinson Armament Co - [XCR-M]
SIG556

Good rifle scopes are very expensive. A decent AR15 cost around $600. A decent rifle scope can run over $1500 and that's the low end of decent scope. Red dot sight will cost the same price of the rifle.
Trijicon Rifle Scopes w/ FREE SHIPPING - ACOG, Accupoint and More!
Aimpoint Red Dot Sights With FREE S&H! - Aimpoint Reflex Sights, Aimpoint Red Dots, Aimpoint Red Dot Scopes & More!

 

[Ky Loung]

If it is a titling bolt design, INSAS and FAL are the only two of that type still in production for military as far as I know. Tilting bolt and roller delay blow back both fell of the map in favor of the three actions (rotating bolt) I mention in the previous post. It's not a bad design just more complex than rotating bolt.

Tilting bolt are neat design tho. I got a SKS in my collection and my cousin bought a VZ 58 clone (called vz2008) this month for $400. Not sure if the SKS is still in product for military. Mind is imported Chinese SKS military surplus. I bought it 10 years or so for $100.
Century International Arms VZ2008 Sporter Rifle 7.62x39 RI1554-X with 5 Mags - $399.99 | Slickguns

If India having trouble upgrading the INSAS than maybe outside help might be warrant. There are thousand of firearms companies in the USA more than willing to help redesign and modernize the rifle. India can keep the manufacturing in India hands. Just remember it doesn't matter how good the design is if the manufacturing quality is low.

 

[Redhawk]

I was always a supporter of the INSAS.

It is not that bad a rifle.

Improvements are always welcomed.

Bhupinder's contentions are valid, but not totally correct.

India has many imported stuff and they are not doing badly.

These things undergo User Trials in all conditions and terrain, They are also Technically evaluated to include the various Lab test of climate, bench use etc

They also are tested for Maintainability.

How the BSF inducts its weapons, I am not aware.

I'm sure the INSAS is a perfectly adequate rifle for a rifle in 5.56mm and as good as any rifle in that calibre, if not superior. But I've always thought that the 5.56mm is far too small a calibre for military small arms.

The Germans had the right idea towards the end of the Second World War when the shortened the case of the 7.92mm Mauser round from 57mm to 33mm for use in the StG-44, but still kept the round in 7.92mm calibre. The Soviets copied this idea for the AK-47 series of assault rifles, keeping the calibre in 7.62mm but having a round with a short 39mm case.

Were these rifles particularly accurate? No, not really. But when does the average soldier engage any target over 100 metres? Occasionally to rarely. In Vietnam, engagements were usually as close as 20 metres or less, so the question of the long-range accuracy of the rifle and the round was academic.

The 7.62mm NATO round had a high mortality rate among those hit with this round from the M-14, FN FAL/L1A1, or G3 rifles and I really don't know why these weapons were dispensed with. They were perfectly adequate and very reliable. It seems the 5.56mm round became a fashion, a vogue, set by the Americans which which everyone else followed.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

5.56mm rounds have many variants, Their are 5.56mm design to wound and their are to kill ..

Barrel length, And rifling also matter besides the round itself ..

======

IA presently use 64gr 5.56mm from +18inch barrel of 1B1, It is design to kill at range beyond 500ms, Getting hit by these under 100ms is sure death, Earlier IA used to use 62gr SS109 5.56mm which was reported ineffective against terrorist ..

 

[The Last Stand]

The 7.62mm NATO round had a high mortality rate among those hit with this round from the M-14, FN FAL/L1A1, or G3 rifles and I really don't know why these weapons were dispensed with. They were perfectly adequate and very reliable.

Probably because of its kick. 7.62 is hard to shoot, with all its recoil. But it is also heavier than 5.56 and therefore has a longer range.

5.56 on the other hand can support greater rate of fire, more rounds, and at short engagement distance, rate of fire can matter.

5.56 might not have a long range compared to the older NATO standard, but the early 5.56 fragmented quite "inhumanely" and caused severe internal damage, haemorrhage etc. But these rounds were abandoned after Vietnam.

The range of the 7.62 and penetrating power (through materials, and lighter body armour also) is the reason all the NATO armies have heavier support weapons (Designated Marksman rifles specifically, ranges upto 800m or so) in the 7.62 caliber.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

As much as i agree with the above I am a firm believer of privatization of the Indian defence manufacture, not taking the hardwork put by the OFB the output is not enough. For Ex :

India designed the 105 Indian Field Gun with in the 60's (correct me if i am wrong ) and after the order was completed did they do any followup development NO they simply sat on it and imported Bofors gun in the "1980's" no doubt it worked wonderfully and played a greater role in the Kargill but India could have developed that a gun like Bofors if they had involved private sector . let me explain if they would have let the private companies develop the gun they would have further invested in R&D and developed and improved the 105mm IFG.
similarly INSAS was with private companies they would have improve it to the latest standard and also India is the only country which doesnot have its own designed pistol they License porduce a ww2 era gun. not just that since i have come from a Public sector background where my Dad is a retired employiee of a Defence PSU and i did my training in that PSU post Engineering i know how the R&D and the production works.

Conclusion : As-long as the private sector is not involved the Indian Defence Market will be dominated by Foreign companies and we will be worlds largest importer and never be self sufficient in defence production

i love your confidence in Pvt sector

but i dont agree with you

just a few questions

Tata steel is more than 100 years old co in the steel sector right ?
now tell me what uniquness it boasts in the mettalurgy sector ?
what technology development r&D has it carried out in mettalurgy ?
when DRDO was developing special ship grade steel for IN ships & Subs - did ti come forward to invest in R&D (neither money nor efforts)
Did it take up any chllenge in developing metallurgy for Gun barells ?

Tata Motors / Maruti Suzuki / M&M
when DRDO is developing 1800 Hp engines 1200 hp engines 1500hp engines

have any of them invested in R&D - has any of these big Pvt Secotr come forward and said look we here we have developed a prototype engine take it test it - point out shortfalls we will improve it & now give us orders ?

there are many many such examples do you want me to go on


So pl take this PVt secotr will do wonders theory with a pinch of salt

what our whole pvt sector is interested in is a

Make in India policy
49% FDi so they get to retain control
tie up with foreign cos - become labour shop - assemble in india
get assured biz and assured margins

i..e they are interested in purely Rent Seeking

the above applies to 97% of indias pvt sector

there is an excception of 3% to the above mentioned scenario

and those 3% should be encourged

notable are

Bharat Forge
L&T
Pipavav
Taneja Aerospace
M&M (gipps aero)
and a host of MSMEs who are coming up the hard way and creating and owning IPs

 

[Yatharth Singh]

One more great example/way of defaming/downgrading our own INSAS.
IA wants to take no responsibility . They are the consumersthey are not responsible for it at all...
They are like a teenage child who once wants something goes to all extent to get that without thinking of any consequences.
They are no different from IAF there bros.... If they get foreign branded good we also want foreign....

Read a article Compare performance of Indian-foreign weapon systems: DRDO | idrw.org
It Holds true here...
Make a comparison check what can be improved and how much time it will take evalute... By the time this deal will finalise a finished good(Its good but everything needs improvement with time and requirement) can be achieved from INSAS.

Caution: Get It in writing from IA that they wont change req and they will induct in good numbers they wont delay trials and at top of it they wont be partial...

Or what can we do it we can make a fraud company (Foreign) and sell the same INSAS rifle to IA I am 100% sure they will love it and have no complaints at all.....

I like it. :thumb:

 

[Sameet Pattnaik]

the problem is that rifle is not customized to the adaptability the babus is the establishment are just hopeless ! Acquiring any other rifle than AKs or Insas is not commendable ! For Eg . kalantak should to be tested and used extensively